Glaski Court refuses to “depublish” decision, two judges recuse themselves.

Corroborating what I have been saying for years on this blog, the Supreme Court of the state of California is reasserting its position that if entity ABC wants to collect on a debt in California, then that particular entity must own the debt. This is basic common sense and simply follows article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. If a court were to adopt the position of the banks, then a new industry would be born, to wit: spying on people to determine whether or not they are behind on any payment to anyone and then beating the real creditor to court, filing a complaint and getting a judgment without the real creditor even knowing about it. The Supreme Court of the state of California obviously understands this.

This is not really complicated although the words used are complicated. If you find out that your neighbor is behind in payments on their credit cards, it is obvious that you cannot serve your neighbor and collect. You don’t own the debt because you never loaned any money and because you never purchased the debt. If you are allowed to sue and collect on the credit card debt, you and the court would be committing a fraud on the actual creditor. This is why it is absurd for lawyers or judges to say “what difference does it make who they owe the debt to?  They stopped making payments and they are clearly in default.”  Any lawyer or judge makes that statement is wrong. It lacks the foundation of the factual determinations required to establish the existence of the debt, the current balance of the debt after deductions for all payments received from all parties on this account, and the ownership of the debt.

In the first year of law school, we learned that the note is not the debt.  The note is evidence of the debt and the terms of repayment but it is not a substitute for the actual transaction documents. Those transaction documents would have to include proof of transfer of consideration, which in this case would mean wire transfer receipts and wire transfer instructions. The banks don’t want to show the court this because it will show that the originator in most cases never made any loan at all and was merely serving as a sham nominee for an undisclosed lender. The banks are attempting to use this confusion to make themselves real parties in interest when in fact they were never more than intermediaries. And as intermediaries that misused their positions of trust to misrepresent and create fraudulent “mortgage bond” transactions with investors that led to fraudulent loans being made to borrowers.

The banks diverted or stole money from investors on several different levels through multiple channels of conduit sham entities that they called “bankruptcy remote vehicles.” The argument of “too big to fail” is now being rejected by the courts. That is a policy argument for the legislative branch of government. While the bank succeeded in scaring the executive and legislative branches into believing the risk of “too big to fail” most of the people in the legislative and executive branches of government on the federal and state level no longer subscribe to this myth.

There are dozens of other courts on the trial and appellate level across the country that are also grasping this issue. The position of the banks, which is been rejected by Congress and the state legislatures for good reason, would mean  the end of negotiable paper. The banks are desperate because they know they are not the owner of the debt, they are not the creditor, they have no authority to represent the creditor, and their actions are contrary to the interests of the creditor. They are pushing millions of homeowners into foreclosure, or luring them into an apparent default and foreclosure with false promises of modification and settlement.

The reason is simple. Without a foreclosure sale at auction, the banks are exposed to an enormous liability for all the money they collected on the alleged defaulted loans. The amount of the liability is vastly in excess of the entire principal of the loans, which is why I say that the major banks are publishing financial statements that are based on fictitious assets and fictitious income. Nobody can ignore the fact that the broker-dealers (investment banks) are getting sued by investors, insurers, counterparties on credit default swaps, government agencies who have already paid for alleged “losses”, and government agencies that have paid on guarantees for mortgages that did not conform to the required industry-standard underwriting practice.

This latest decision in which the Glaski court, at the request of the banks, revisited its prior decision and then reaffirmed it as a law of the land in the state of California, is evidence that the courts are turning the corner in favor of the real creditors and the real debtors. The recusal by two judges on the California Supreme Court is interesting but at this point there are no conclusions that can be drawn from that.

This opens the door in the state of California for people to regain title to their property or damages for the loss of title. It also serves to open the door to discovery of the actual money trail in order to trace real transactions as opposed to fictitious ones based upon fabricated documentation which often contain forgery, backdating, and are signed by people without authority or people claiming authority through a fictitious power of attorney.

Glaski Court Reaffirms Law of the Land In California: If you don’t own the debt, you cannot collect on it.

317 Responses

  1. JPM loses a note with three endorsements and then finds one with two. So if the first copy of the note bears three… and they claim it to be an original, there’d be no reason to suddenly find another original note with only two endorsements. That is, unless they have a magic time machine. http://tawebster.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/webster_non-jury-trial_18th-judicial-circuit_brevard-county-florida

  2. It’s a land grab, plain and simple. Much like the west Texas oil well scams and the great olive oil scandal… the crooks way over-sell their investment(s), a hundred to one, a thousand to one or however much they feel like swindling because once you learn the trick, you can use it just about anywhere any as long as the majority of the people fail to see the linkage to the swindle, out govt. and tbtf we will continue to see these boom and busts every third or fourth generation or so when they believe everyone has forgot about the last scam that was pulled. Of course lame-stream media plays a part of this. I’d recommend checking out the movie “The Producers,” a Mel Brooks film with Matthew Brokerick, it explains the very nature of this scheme in a fairly decent movie. Will we ever wake up? If yes, what can be done? Owner financing, peer to peer lending… I don’t know. All I know is from the 90 x 1 leverage that JPM had on its asset to derivatives ratio, they can now afford to build a ton of those bright shiny new buildings of theirs.
    They are the problem!

  3. Trespass Unwanted, you said:

    “Investigations usually don’t come to light until someone has decided what to do about it, anyway.”

    That’s a very astute observation imho.

  4. If you don’t agree you don’t get to use it that’s coercion

  5. They seem to forget about the reasonableness clause of all contracts they must be understandable

  6. @ Trespass Unwanted ,

    ***********************************
    They were trusted with positions in the public, and they had to be trusted because were were schooled to be ignorant of their world, language, and contracts.
    ***********************************

    We must rely on regulators and others that we the people pay for to protect us ,, I have seen studies where it would take 3-4 MONTHS or 40 hour weeks just to read every legal disclaimer and contract we encounter in our daily lives , everything from software licenses to the fine print on our deposit slips at the bank… and it would no doubt cost several years of your salary to have even a fraction of them explained to you by a competent professional. We need to demand more from them,, we need simplified contracts and most of all we need to fire every last regulator at the OCC , SEC and the other agencies we are forced to rely upon…

  7. .For 2013, Freddie Mac says it purchased 1.6 million refinances, They bought 515,000 single family purchase loans and 388,000 multifamily rental unit loans.
    This means the activity known as ‘securitization’ is still going on full force, which is unbelievable to me, actually (and FHLMC to my knowledge doesn’t purchase as many loans as, say, FNMA).
    I think that even if securitization is done ‘properly”, as allegedly intended, it’s still illegitimate, even taking out MERS. One of the reasons I think that, fwiw, is related to the “doing business-ness” of
    enforcing the loans a trust purchases (and because the certs don’t pay on the p & i received by the trust. These are supposed to be, imo, entities which to keep their tax-beneficial status are to be ‘static’ structures. That, to me, means what they can DO is limited to accepting p & i, the return on these particular assets – promissory notes given by homeowners – and passing thru those payments to
    holders of the certificates. I believe they initially created “MERS” to solve the enforcement, aka ‘doing business’, problem on these assets. If MERS were an agent, then whatever it does is the act of the trust (if MERS were the agent of the trust, that is). So it’s poss the trust could be seen as ‘doing business’ by trying to enforce the notes. It’s no accident, not one iota, that MERS wasn’t designated an agent. As I’ve opined a hundred times, no agency is created in and by the dot. It may be found elsewhere, but it’s not created there and any member of the judiciary who says it is imo slept soundly thru agency. By making MERS a nominee instead, they tried to avoid the trust doing business. Theoretically then, “MERS” aka servcer wearing MERS’ hat (nothing short of scandalous) would enforce the loan and also theoretically, get those funds to the trust (these funds are likely distributed akin to an early payoff by the borrower and got me how that’s done, but I suspect could be very problematic, the biggest problem being, succinctly, that certain loans are paid off but those fund not distributed to certificate holders, who don’t appear to be paid pursuant to the notes in the first place. This m.o., MERS as nominee, bifurcates the note and dot, and imo, leaves the dot unperfected and the note unenforceable, at least in security first states if SF is not plain mandated by the instruments themselves. I believe this was a finding which led to the Consent Order (that and that MERS has no interest in the note, which we knew). MERSCorp, when it created itself and MERS, must have decided that either wasn’t the case or so what. As I’ve said, the NV SC (at least) has ruled that MERS does bifurcate the note and dot. This says it found MERS is NOT an agent. It also found the note and dot may be REunified (won’t go there again – already hollered about the critical diff between unification and REunification, but the court, any court, must lawfully determine if these instruments may now be unified). What wasn’t addressed by the NV SC or any other court that I know of is whether that bifurcation finds the coll instrument unperfected because of the disconnect with the note. Imo, in order for the coll instrument to be perfected, they have to go back to the original lender, (here the note payee) briefly, and that’s a disaster for them of course. (I say tough because of what they’ve abused etc.)
    I don’t believe they set out to scam the world, at least not to the extent that’s been done. But when that gang discovered they could benefit by not transferring the loans, thanks to “MERS”, greed took over. But even that ignores the CDS’s which appear to be part and parcel of the PSA’s, which makes for the beginning of third party payments, way I get it.
    So that seems to have been their plan – have a nominee (NOT an agent) “do business”. Plus they thought they got to skip the assgts, IF any. And speaking of IF any, if they weren’t done, then no recorder is owed moolah (but mark my word – it’s just a matter of time before they claim they were done but unrecorded, at least in states whose statutes don’t mandate recordation of assgts). One of the real goals of MERSCorp was electronic trading. To what extent it’s been tried already with non-electronic notes, who among us could say? The treachery which has come of the lack of recordation of interests in our land may or may not have been part of a business model that was already cacah, but it’s what happened and as long as securitization and MERS is around, I don’t see what’s to stop it. AIG,for instance, almost got killed, but for the largess of the gov’t with our funds. Why AIG chose to insure this garbage, got me. Not that AIG chose to insure financial instruments, but for WHOM it insured them is the big why.
    Besides all the rampart bs going on with the theft of homes by people with no interest, etc. etc. etc., we’re left with no respect for the once venerable institutions we had. “HAD” – key word. I try not to politicize generally and because that’s not really the intent of this forum, but it irks me that people are calling for U.S. action in yet another foreign country when we can’t get U.S. action at home for the benefit of those who built this place, its citizens. It’s damn well the middle-class that keeps this place jumping.
    When MERS goes, it needs to take “securitization” with it. Unitl then, as far as I’m concerned, elements of the crime will still exist. And I’d still like to know why FNMA guaranteed their certificates and how it is that they get away with not crediting the borrower with at least those guarantee payments.

  8. That low hanging fruit was given enough rope to hang itself.
    We don’t have to go to war with them.
    There is plenty of paperwork proof that they went to war first with us.

    They were trusted with positions in the public, and they had to be trusted because were were schooled to be ignorant of their world, language, and contracts.

    They are being investigated.
    Investigations usually don’t come to light until someone has decided what to do about it, anyway.

    Enough of them are US citizens, and enough of them are not, to create some problems with justice I’m sure.

    They have no immunity.
    I was looking at an SEC newsletter that punished an LLC.
    Used to be a limited liability corporation had uh, limited liability.

    So funny.
    You let them do what they do and when they get punished, you just don’t care, because there is culpability and knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, within their actions.

    IRS has their eyes in the right places now, too.
    What is it? Judges have to not have anything older than 90 days or something like that? Once that’s closed out, it’s sealed by their ‘hand’.

    Wonder what should have ‘obviously’ been dismissed that they kept for themselves. Like those inside traders should have done something different but kept it for themselves.

    Poppy, I know about cases where you can’t reveal the outcome or they claw back the judgment. A college aged girl on facebook learned that quickly, she mentioned a lawsuit her parents had with a company and that as a result of the settlement, her vacation was being paid for by said company. The company found out about the posting. The company knew her disclosure violated the terms of the NDA and they got the judge to reverse the judgment.

    $80,000 settlement gone! Poof and it’s gone!

    No one has to disclose their private and confidential information on line to a bunch of strangers, whether they win or lose, they do not have to disclose anything to satisfy the ‘tauntings’ of a stranger who was not and is not a factor in their case nor their life.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio (In One’s Own Right), Jure Divino (By Divine Right)

  9. You’re right, KC..you can’t get class from trash!

  10. Poppy … Chicken Feed, like stripping the wing off the fly!
    Enough is Enough!

    Go for the Jugular and Make It a Clean Cut!

    Hire yourself an Attorney, now is a Good Time!

    Oh, and Poppy, don’t get dragged thru the pig pen, walk around it.

    Gene? To Many Questions?

    Or have you fallen prey to fashion? A fashion victim wearing duct tape?

    Boy, I say Boy …. Its Not your Color!
    🙂

  11. Well, 7 arrests in CA, Kamila Harris for lawyers pushing fake f/c documents, NY law firm (forget name) costumed up making fun of homeowners….arrested and shut down, FL f/c mill-law offices charged. AND these are only the very public cases.

    If there was ever a doubt for me who this person blogs for, there is no more. And alluding to the fact she has lawyers investigating anyone personally, holy poop.

    FYI: the original complaint against BOA for Breach of Contract (suspense account) is available, in NC …try harder dearie. Your lawyer pals have Pacer, invest in it, good tool!

  12. Well, 7 arrests in CA, Kamila Harris for lawyers pushing fake f/c documents, NY law firm (forget name) costumed up making fun of homeowners….arrested and shut down, FL f/c mill-law offices charged. AND these are only the very public cases.

    If there was ever a doubt for me who this person blogs for, there is no more. And alluding to the fact she has lawyers investigating anyone personally, holy poop.

    FYI: the original complaint against BOA for Breach of Contract (suspense account) is available, in NC …try harder dearie. Your lawyer pals have Pacer, invest in it, good tool!

  13. Yes…the evidence is in the paperwork and rulings. One need not look any further to see the corrupted lineage and abuse. We are not only admonished by these thugs, but even our own colleagues. Unbelievable pathology…

  14. Poppy
    Johngault, you, gene & I have got it right
    You hit the nail on the head
    Those SOBs would do anything to win even usurp the Constitution which these judges are doing

  15. The low hanging fruit are the cronies filing all this counterfeit paper. It is not slander, it is a fact and far too may in the legal profession are not following their oath…if it’s a lie and slander, show me!

    And all of my paperwork is in the pacer system, except BOA….where is yours chrissy? And “all” the lawyers helping her here…please show yourselves…why anyone would want to spend their time on me, curious. Jealous?

  16. If my personal files have been compromised by the lawyers that are on here, beware…it is private and there will be fallout! As a matter of fact it would behoove me to put a call into the attorney’s in the case, to CYA and let them know the former karate kid in Ohio is on the lose, compromising the confidentiality of the settlement and maligning, slandering my character…

  17. **** knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgages was not enforceable, but he did not disclose this fact to the grantor.
    **** made the transfer with intent to defraud
    .
    Seeds for exemplary and punitive damages?

  18. Gene,

    RE” Foondos said a Fresno homeowner fought foreclosure in court and won in the case known as Glask v. Bank of America.

    ****** In the case, the homeowner claimed the financial institution trying to take his home didn’t have the right to because the loan was improperly transferred to a securities trust.”

  19. Good Evening Christine, I Hope all is Well!

    Gene, I would Love to hear your input on this case.

    http://www.kcra.com/news/attorney-court-ruling-could-help-families-in-foreclosure/24755932#.UxNMlHG1BbY.email

  20. “For me, go after the low hanging fruit and the mouth pieces; the lawyers. Play dirty if you must; go after their bond, sue them personally, file complaints…”

    Holy Sh**! If there ever was a bad, bad, bad advice, requiring an enormous amount of wasted energy for no yield whatsoever other than very serious aggravation and probable lawsuits for defamation, libel, slander and what not and years of hell, this one truly takes the cake!

    Is this website a race to the bottom? Because I can see some serious ties here… And still NOT ONE CASE argued in court by Garfield, let alone won by him on his own theories. Never mind anything won by the bloggers…

    If you’ve already lost the house and you could move on and start again, just do it. Put whatever happened to you on the account of a bad experience never to be repeated and move on. Go that loonie’s route and you can be assured years upon years upon years of pure hell, in and out of court.

    The blogger giving that advice has not scored ONE win. Not ONE. Not against Ocwen, Not against New Century. None. That alleged “big B of A settlement” is so ellusive that not ONE attorney blogging here has been able to confirm it.

    You get what you pay for. You’re warned. Follow that kind of advice at your own peril.

  21. Gene said, “Why do you think that NG does not get involved in these discussions? Why does he just post items, make a few comments and then disappear?”

    He actually used to get involved in the comment’s section quite frequently, way back in the 2008-09 era. I think he rightly realized the danger in this, not only from the – aiding the borrower without state license – stance, but also, as we witnessed recently, when that harry dude from Tennessee starting yelling “disbarment!” from the cheap seats. I know Neil’s always been careful to word things just right in his teleconference stuff as well. They are listening and they are bad news. Like the plague. It’s better to climb into the pod and make sure Hal can’t read your lips before assuming otherwise.

    It doesn’t do any good to yell bullshit law in a crowded forum filled with self-proclaimed foreclosure experts, all of whom believe they have the holy grail, the final straw that will break the backs of the banks. Unfortunately, many simply blink and nod like eyes in the dark jungle when confronted with small issues like legal precedent. Most immediately start back with the blather, endlessly; not seeming to realize that the foe they’re fighting is in fact, the same exact government that has pretended to act on the borrower’s behalf on every occasion, what with Hamp, Harp, Tarp, and Tamp. I made that last one up, but it works for me. Tamp the former homeowner into the ground, like a WWF pile-driver move. These so-called borrower programs were actually bankster-aid cloaked programs, but then, who’s counting any longer? We’ve met the enemy….

    Then this same government extracts huge settlements, which go towards hiring tens of thousands more NSA contractors to sift through this forum, and our emails, awaiting the day that we displease them. Oh, and to install more CITI and Sachs folks into the highest positions in the administration and across the globe. You can’t make this shit up.

    Not meaning to bash folks here….not my style. Just tired of checking in here to read the same crap reiterated ad nauseum by the same folks round-the-clock. You know who you are….every five (or less) minutes believing what you have to say is worth its weight in gold, when what’s actually needed here is a wheelbarrow icon in the corner of LL where 95% of the posts could be composted, utilizing the pure bullshit in all of these comments into some wonderfully potent soil amendments. I can dream.

    Right on JG. Many of these loans have been satisfied for sure. And from my viewpoint, if ten gazillion dollars are paid as a fine to the gov due to ABC trust being filled with waste products, then those underlying waste products should be written off one by one at the same time. Hire some of the robo-assholes to fulfill this task. Only, pay them half min-wage to atone for their sins. And let’s look at a real accomplishment, that of reducing Congressional pay to min-wage as well. Now, we’re talking.

    Congress – Always Low Wages, Always!

    Now there’s a game-changer….

  22. My friend has a question,

    Did the Creditor file BK to restructure or liquidate?

  23. JG … 🙂

  24. I’m not an attorney and know even less about BK. that’s why I don’t comment on it.

  25. KC once again you do not know what you are talking about

    I received the $ and owe it to someone. Since that some one would not show up and defend his claim against my property rights (the supposed security since we do not have a true creditor) the trustee approved us listing them (every one known and unknown to the transaction) as unsecured and the court discharged the debt.

    got it

    my rights were restored to my property after the discharge and they proceeded to do as John Gault has elaborated

    the 2nd (my true 1st mgt) refused to get involved and was also discharged

    the first is a nullity 146 years of property law “Carpenter vs Logan 1867 once a mortgage has been satisfied it is no longer secured” as well as simple contract law that consideration must be a transaction between the party’s concerned (i write a check to you and you transfer it without endorsement or indorse meant you are satisfied and security ends) and an originator is not a creditor so there is no secured contract in the first place (known as the boogy man $ giver never willing to show themselves to the homeowner to negotiate with)

    last response to you

  26. Its like giving SURETY notice on NOV 4th 2008 but the Deal was sealed last day of OCT 2008.

  27. Was that a NO?

  28. When Briggs ____________________________.
    Did MGIC enjoin the Suretys (Davis) before the event?

  29. Glovers, Your claim was the debt was discharged in your BK.

    Wrong Claim …. Its should have been … it was discharged when _____?

  30. the recorders office workers are advised just to file,
    they are scared to death in El Dorado county
    what a mess

  31. When MGIC as Briggs creditor allowed Briggs to sell and Warranty Deeds to Buyers .. it forfeited its right as Briggs creditor/Mortgagee …. the “The Due on Sale Clause”

  32. i agree but it is very simple, the debt exists cause money was exchanged just as a credit card transaction, so it is owed. The ? r9emains and has been determined that the secularization is a nullity at best since we can not confer with the real party

    146 years of property law “Carpenter vs Logan 1867 once a mortgage has been satisfied it is no longer secured” as well as simple contract law that consideration must be a transaction between the party’s concerned (i write a check to you and you transfer it without endorsement or indorse meant you are satisfied and security ends) and an originator is not a creditor so there is no secured contract in the first place (known as the boogy man $ giver never willing to show themselves to the homeowner to negotiate with)

  33. Davis was saying (as a surety) that the “others creditors” could not enjoin Davis via a FC after it had already settled with Briggs.

  34. Hush My Child .. Hush

    Take #3

    RE: KC, on March 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm said:

    Its like giving notice on NOV 4th 2008 but the Deal was sealed last day of OCT 2008.

    Coyle

  35. Bijaya, All:

    My goal here, much of the time, is to honestly try and untangle the maze…I can only speak to what I know, as evidenced by many hours in courts and hundreds of hours of research, trying to improve the obvious weakness I have as an unskilled legal eagle.

    There are some things I do understand, experience is a very good teacher. For me, go after the low hanging fruit and the mouth pieces; the lawyers. Play dirty if you must; go after their bond, sue them personally, file complaints…we ALL have bogus paperwork wrought with; statements of perjury, forged documents tied to the doctrine of unclean hands, with counterfeiting, fiduciary duty (when you hire them), conflicts of interest, debt collectors hiding as holders-beneficiaries-substitute trustees from closed entities-lack of diligence and outright fraud.

    The judges can turn a blind eye, but that does not make it untrue. Their paperwork should never see the inside of a courtroom or a deed office. Disgraceful, IMHO

    The game here IS fixed and intentional. Make no mistake…these guys are cowards and have sold out to the highest bidder, while destroying an entire legal system of recordation and laws….my piece on this garbage.

  36. Bijaya, you just reminded me of something. I don’t know to what extent third party payments have been made on loans. But, a collateral instrument is released, is toast, as a matter of law when the debt it secures is paid off. To me, that means that the coll instrument for any note actually paid off should be released (mtg) or the interest conveyed (dot) should be reconveyed. if someone knows the debt has been paid, that someone has an obligation to 86 the coll instrument. Strikes me as a crime not to.do so, esp if the intent in not doing so is to try to enforce that coll instrument. Let’s say B of A
    didn’t transfer the note to a trust and B of A managed to get 100k on a 100k note from someone other than the note maker. Either B of A had no right to those funds, or those funds paid off the note and B of A should have released / reconveyed the coll instrument instead of using a “MERS” assgt to a trust so a trust can try to take the collateral.
    The point is if B of A were the proper party for those funds, not only is the note paid, but the coll instrument is toast and keeping that a secret is an element of a crime. I can’t stress the importance of security first enough. If the coll instrument should have been, and is as a matter of law toast, even one in possession of a bearer note has no way to enforce it against the collateral, and no way at all with
    security first. That’s one of the reasons I think these notes aren’t
    reg’d by article 3 – as far as I can tell, article 3 butts heads with
    security first because the first action with security first must be against the collateral, not personal judgment on the note, and in any case of prior payment, the coll instrument is gone, gone, gone.
    Lenders don’t generally try to foreclose because the collateral is a surer bet. They try to foreclose because it’s the remedy prescribed by law if not the agreement; the law (at least in security first states), doesn’t allow the first action to be for a personal judgment and for the prescribed remedy, they need the collateral instrument.
    lay opinions

  37. Yup poppy the burden of proof is on them but the judges are not having it

    dam auto correcter made it them the in the earlier comment

  38. agreed poppy they did the same to me when the trustee did not defend my homestead right in the BK7 and sue for damages to pay my creditors and refused to join my suit when I had the default judgements on 2 of the 8 ( we only new 4) banksters

    The money was tendered when no creditor appeared to fight against being declared unsecured

    (they totally ruined 146 years of property law “Carpenter vs Logan 1867 once a mortgage has been satisfied it is no longer secured” as well as simple contract law that consideration must be a transaction between the party’s concerned (i write a check to you and you transfer it without endorsement or indorse meant you are satisfied and security ends) and an originator is not a creditor so there is no secured contract in the first place (known as the boogy man $ giver never willing to show themselves to the homeowner to negotiate with)

  39. Take 2 ..

    KC, on March 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm said:

    Its like giving notice on NOV 4th 2008 but the Deal was sealed last day of OCT 2008.

    Right Poppy?

  40. excellant response poppy

  41. I agree poppy
    These guys must be on the other side
    I do not read there posts any more
    Sure takes a lot of my time
    Don’t waste yours
    She was asked to leave the site long ago

  42. Yup poppy the burden of proof is on the but the judges are not having it
    they totally ruined 146 years of property law “Carpenter vs Logan 1867 once a mortgage has been satisfied it is no longer secured” as well as simple contract law that consideration must be a transaction between the party’s concerned (i write a check to you and you transfer it without endorsement or indorse meant you are satisfied and security ends) and an originator is not a creditor so there is no secured contract in the first place (known as the boogy man $ giver never willing to show themselves to the homeowner to negotiate with)

  43. We get a bijaya commenting and then some brian grover later in the day and now they are combined as one? This is the deal that people are not wanting us to win but start crap, and away we go, when we should be having more time in winning!

  44. Its like giving notice on NOV 4th 2008 but the Deal was sealed last day of OCT 2008.

    Oh Holly Shaft!

  45. Poppy as the loan are part of this bankruptcy and NC originated the loans and the judge does not think the transfer to Credit Sussie was legal then he will reserve the action and your originator who is NC will be the rightful owner. Now if NC did not apply the down payment or payments then that is a problem, but I don’t see were its a big problem because you did put the money down and where paying your payment.

    However the problem I sure your having in stopping a foreclosure is that at something you stop paying your payment and they are not accepting anything but the full amount to bring you current.

    Look everybody been there as I feel that what cause of this was the banks and people employment went away. However as your trying to stop a foreclosure I don’t think NC was a part of TARP as they were already in deep trouble.

    But what I am sure a court will look at is even if the accounting is correct are you still behind and you not been damage do to the non applying of payment because if they were applied right now you still be behind.

    Now if they foreclosed and Credit Sussie was handled over the Notes, then I believe you got a case because the Notes were not purchase by Credit Sussie in exchange for the lender default of THEIR debt!

    I am saying that Credit Sussie or another creditor cannot simply come in and seize those NC loan that were not sold.

  46. There exists a private party agreement between such BDs and CW.

    Then there is the Investments the BDs have in the investment back to… such they purchase as part of agreement to upstreamer.

    Now CW had its own LOCs and their creditor charged them OFF before merger.

    So If CW and everyone down is …. relieved because BOA charged off?

    Excuse Me BOA ….. I AM SURETY!!!!!!! And Beneficiary !!!

    Coyle

  47. nice poppy

  48. They are going after the investment banks who bought this crap from the BD … LLCs & LLPs.

    CW originated loans .. sure .. but it also bought them from BDs
    ( I prefer to call them BBs).

  49. Most broker dealer were not producing the bulk of FHA loans! Look at who the Fed Gov going after in the big 9 lenders!

  50. Charles: First off, I never complained about Credit Suisse, I am trying to impart a story that may relate to millions of unsuspecting borrowers, got that?

    Second: Credit Suisse NEVER took over anything as a Lender, the note was seized for compensation from New Century, not me…for lines of credit “they” borrowed, per transcript, Suzanne Uhland, reorganization attorney, DAH?

    Third: a default of the loan in 2007 had nothing to do with me…again, get it? That is significant, Charles

    And FYI: the foreclosure fight is righteous….they have NO rights, in my case. They stole my down payment and payments and did not apply the monies. Per suit in 2008, per court transcript again.

    I have a legal right to request this information and it is subject to inquiry; civilly, criminally and administratively…

    Quit trying to turn this discussion around. The facts Charles…it appears you are not comfortable with the knowledge you owe nothing. Why are you trying to convince everyone here and yourself, that a debt is owed. You really don’t know that for a fact, now do you?

    I am 100% sure…I intended to gather financing, but it appears that did not happen and I made payments to people who stole them…now, how do you like that? Get your head right, Charles…just saying

  51. KC losses in 2007-Aug 2008 were of the subprime type and not FHA. TARP was passed Oct 2008 and the last part was put in place in Jan 2009.

    You had no data on FHA default that was printed, but it was into 2009 and through 2010 that the losses of the government loan were piled up!

    So that you don’t care about money who did you report this to and what number of losses were you telling the Fed Gov they were losing? This is the first you talked about you told somebody that you informed the Fed Gov but your been here using every moment to talk about some $140 loan you got problems with!

    You also discovered America? Getting read to go fix some windows as its beautiful outside, and deal with the nuts out there!

  52. . Nobody can ignore the fact that the broker-dealers (investment banks) are getting sued by investors, insurers, counterparties on credit default swaps, government agencies who have already paid for alleged “losses”, and government agencies that have paid on guarantees for mortgages that did not conform to the required industry-standard underwriting practice.

  53. RE: A title closer had no way of nothing anything to tell to the federal government!

    Ahhh hahahahaha

    Then why did the Broker/Dealers run for the Borders?

  54. Charles …
    Prior 2007
    Thru 2007 collapse
    Leading to the 2008 Charge Offs
    TARP
    And eventually in 2010 the Loss an Agreement with the World Bank

    Trust Me ..
    They Got their Eye Opener in 07. Long before I reported.

  55. KC where did you get total to report this mass fraud in 2009 when there was no complied data at that point? This is not I feel all these people were getting foreclosed. What put a hold on most everything was HAMP at first. So were did KC did national data that did not exist yet?

  56. Poppy if you had been current you would not be here complain about Credit Sussie taking over as the lender. Dude you would not be talking about stopping a foreclosure if you were current. So thing speak for itself!

  57. Poppy I get it that you got to wait because NC is in bankruptcy and you not got a clue at this time as to what your going to have to do.

    At the bank we closed the loan and had them assignment and shipped them out to sale as a correspondent and my boss endorsed all the loan for the bank when selling the loans. Yes at the time I did not know about the pooling but that was then and this is now.

    KC even if you closed loan for the title companies you had no information of the fallout rate of the FHA loan, and before 2009 the fallout was only max 2% real close to the Prime loans.

    Why do you think that only now the government is saying the the other problems go back a decade because it did not show up in the foreclosure rate because it was not high. What clued the FHA to there screw up was the Nov 2012 independent audit that showed a $70 billion in loan losses!

    A title closer had no way of nothing anything to tell to the federal government!

  58. Poppy! roflmbo

  59. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, KC…

    it was substantial in my deposition….when asked if I recognized the COPY of a “signed” note and DOT…Response: cannot affirm counselor, copies can be fabricated. You mean to tell me you did not sign this? This is not your signature? yes, maam…now if you had the original I might be better equipped to verify it. Next question….

  60. Charles, please quit throwing me in the mix with your “unadulterated” insights.

    You have no actual knowledge of my payment history, how I got where I did, and all of the “evidence” I possess to validate my claims against the mobsters…now, stop it!

  61. Generally speaking …. If you cant pay an investment property off completely in less than 10yrs … its not really a Good Investment.

  62. Charles darlin’…closing a loan at a bank is signage…they don’t make you privy to the inner workings of transfers, assignment, indorsements, pooling, etc…come on now…

    sign here: this is your HUD statement, sign here: this is an escrow waiver, sign here: etc, etc, etc….

  63. I am Surety!

  64. KC you see what you get and its Poppy who borrowed $1,000,000 and signed this Note for the million with his signature and been living in the house for 10yrs paying a payment, and now that he not paid a payment for a year or two and is saying that the Note he signed is not evident that there is a debt. So the seller of the home walked away from a million property but did not receive the million?

    We got to stop and this is why people are not winning!

    KC you still not told us how you without a FHA loan and not working at the FHA or Ginnie Mae came to know in 2009 that all this bad stuff was going on over at HUD?

  65. Thou state shalt not …..restrain me. I am the state. See Me Now?

  66. Poppy, RE: “The note is evidence of the debt and the terms of repayment but it is not a substitute for the actual transaction documents”

    You have the evidence in your hand my friend .. 🙂

  67. RE: How many loan have you closed? I have personal close thousand of loans for the bank!

    KC .. I’ve closed more loans for the Title Companies than you originated with the Bank.

  68. Yes KC the collateral instrument was separated also but if another takes possession of the blank endorsed Note you also separated the debt because no sum of money was transferred in consideration of the Note!

  69. “The note” is evidence of a/thee debt, maybe, perhaps, prove it? IMO

    Doesn’t mean there is an existing debt…here’s where your battle begins. And if there is debt…who are you? who-who-who-who are you, I really wanna know, who are you? etc……….LOL

  70. KC you are giving bad advice as there is not other document that talks about repayment other the the Note and the security instrument talk about what happens if you don’t pay in regards to the property being foreclosed.

    The Note talks about what another is due and when its do! A Note is agreement to pay back X amount at 5% over 360 months. And we wonder why homeowners are not winning if your this attorney and this is what you come up with.

    I am sure in the first year of law school they did not tell you this. How many loan have you closed? I have personal close thousand of loans for the bank!

  71. What they did was separated the Note from the Collateral Instrument.

  72. The note is evidence of the debt.

  73. RE: The Note is only a Note because it contains a debt,

    Wrong, Try Again!

  74. KC I never been to law school but President Obama is a lawyer and I not impressed at all about what he our he people know. In Feb 2009 they did not know that a bankruptcy judge could not lower the principal of these loans because primary home loan is not encluded in the BKs.

    The home loan is no different than borrowing $100,000 cash and the Note is the agreement to pay back the $100,000 cash, and it is a unsecured loan. The only different in the home loan is that its intended to purchase a house and if the lender wants to secure the loan they need to have attached a security instrument.

    The Note is the contract that borrowers are signing in agreement to pay back the loan and the securities instrument is saying if you don’t pay back the loan then we will foreclose on the properties to recover the amount the one has borrowed.

    The Note is only a Note because it contains a debt, but in the case of these securities pools the Note is separated from the debt when the Note is signed in blank and relinquish without the other party purchasing the debt!

  75. In the first year of law school, we learned that the note is not the debt. The note is evidence of the debt and the terms of repayment but it is not a substitute for the actual transaction documents

  76. gene: I cannot speak for all here, but who cares who you are, unless credibility is a point for dispensation of actual facts, that are verifiable and have successfully been used for a homeowner’s claim…

    All the blather about what “they” did or didn’t do, when will you enlighten us, gene, so we can give credit, where credit is due?

    Can you tell us, in the immediate, when defending ourselves…why we should not shoot the messenger, as he/she is the mouthpiece?

    And I am not trying to be confrontational, but I am exhausted with people who claim “all” this insight and cannot articulate one activity procedural or otherwise that will put us near the goal post!

  77. bijaya there are 233 comments and it the weekend where during the week we would have moved on. Staying on topic is what we do as it all all about wrongs done.

    Gene no we don’t know who you are as there are millions on Genes in the US. But you come in here and we are just suppose to take you word on these subjects that we can see with our own eyes that people are winning, yet your telling us to not believe our eyes.

    Now we know Neil does not read the post because if he did he would be winning were others are winning.

    You telling me that I don’t know about securities, but I do personal know how the loans are placed in and out of the pools because I have my own file from Ginnie Mae that I obtain through the FOIA. So I am not guessing at something, but instead I am looking at the documents which clearly some the path of the loan!

  78. even after foreclosure they should be held liable for fraud, false doc filing a felony, etcetra
    where is the FBI FTC SEC or anyone for that matter willing to lock these individuals up

  79. It seems to me no matter how they role the dice … all loses get dumped on the taxpayers.

  80. they totally ruined 146 years of property law “Carpenter vs Logan 1867 once a mortgage has been satisfied it is no longer secured” as well as simple contract law that consideration must be a transaction between the party’s concerned (i write a check to you and you transfer it without endorsement or indorse meant you are satisfied and security ends) and an originator is not a creditor so there is no secured contract in the first place (known as the boogy man $ giver never willing to show themselves to the homeowner to negotiate with)

  81. The banks diverted or stole money from investors …..

    The reason is simple. Without a foreclosure sale at auction, the banks are exposed to an enormous liability for all the money they collected on the alleged defaulted loans. The amount of the liability is vastly in excess of the entire principal of the loans, which is why I say that the major banks are publishing financial statements that are based on fictitious assets and fictitious income. Nobody can ignore the fact that the broker-dealers (investment banks) are getting sued by investors, insurers, counterparties on credit default swaps, government agencies who have already paid for alleged “losses”, and government agencies that have paid on guarantees for mortgages that did not conform to the required industry-standard underwriting practice.

    RE: ” the banks are exposed to an enormous liability”

    Neil, do you mean the taxpayers? Can we really afford that?

  82. agreed Poppy
    they just do not get it
    there is no secured contract it is a credit card

  83. nice Gene

    these guys are on a blog line about the Glaski decision and do not even remain on topic

    they should go to there own blog

    it is not a personal form but one for relevant information to the topic in the title of the blog line

  84. Gene, Please .. Enlighten us.

    You come here slinging mud with your words, yet you offer no real resolution, only a one sided debate.

    Why didn’t you answer my questions? Like I don’t already know.

  85. Poppy, … Security First and the One Action Rule?

  86. I love it. None of you have a clue as to who I am or what I have done to advance understanding of what is going on. Nor the arguments that I have created for attorneys that have assisted homeowners in foreclosure defense.

    You are “eating your own” here, advancing theories that have no basis in law or finance.

    Why do you think that NG does not get involved in these discussions? Why does he just post items, make a few comments and then disappear? Think you should ask him about this?

  87. What I cannot believe is the documents being filed as: legal documentation of a debt. What a disgrace these lawyers have become. Some of this paperwork is unsigned-scribbled, when the requirement is to have a legal signature…what do these people not understand?

    Initialed not signed, initials are NOT a proper indorsement/endorsement.

    Lack of diligence and oversight…good gawd. This is “evidence” of the debt, with zero verification of who is signing what and who they really are? Toilet paper has more validity!

    And IMHO, anyone can sign a DOT, means nothing, nada…it is likened to me signing over my car title…if there is a lien-holder, who can register it? And, I committed fraud, felony theft with intent to deceive and taking money under false pretenses…again, IMHO

    The legal eagles here: under the DOT a note is defined as: a promissory note…statute of limitations “should” apply for collections, in every state. Their words, not mine…am I correct or not? If not, why not? Thanks

  88. Bijaya & Brian, … I only get sarcastic when someone attacks me (a non attorney) for not knowing the laws in all 50 states. Its quite and education getting thru the Constitution, Federal and State Laws. Especially when they conflict,

    I also don’t take kindly being called a bankster.

    Be Kind and I will Return the Same ….
    We will just agree to disagree …. OK?

  89. Poppy
    Like your 9.51 post
    Best of luck to you and god speed resolution of your cases.

  90. KC I don’t know how in 2009 you would have realized the FHA losses not working at or around the program because the losses did not actually start to take place until later 2009 and there was not number complied until much later.FHA borrowers did not start losing there homes on a large scale until the employment decease, so there was no data on these losses until later 2010-2012.

    However not submitting a whistle-blow claim does not get to the people it needs to get to in an official capable of investigating the matter. But even if you did not the billions in reward money you could have donated back to the US Treasury, but like Warren Buffett who thinks rich people taxes are to low, he does not paid what he thinks they should paid, and his Berkshire corporation is disputing its tax amount.

    So the country is recovering all this money they would not have even know they loss as with the recent claims that there was a decade of corruption in bad underwriting and falsifying documents to obtain FHA insurance, but that was not realized until the loan were foreclosed. Billions that had no way of getting back into the taxpayer coffers, and a piece of that going to the person that reported means from the numbers Sen Warren report in $39 billion minus the reward is not what the taxpayer would want oppose to zero?

    KC where did you work to have known total losses on FHA loans in 2009? You are not a believable person!

  91. Wrong!!!

    RE: ” talking about some $140,000 estate problem and modification? Right ”

    The correct answer is $143,000 VS 1.4 MILLION $ Estate…
    and NO LOAN MODIFICATION!

  92. poppy you are so correct

    i did just that in all 3 courts in CA and the judges are so corrupt and each new i had filed bk7 and even in the 7 failed to understand the simpleness of property rights of a homestead and the trustee failed to defend them, but they defied the rules presented and dismissed me knowing full well i had no funds to appeal and they also in each case failed to protect the individual lender in 3rd positions rights

    at least i won 2 default judgements, forced a judge to claim in court he would not be the first to follow the statue as required, and force a judge to dismiss a congruently filed case with bogus language

    they totally ruined 146 years of property law “Carpenter vs Logan 1867 once a mortgage has been satisfied it is no longer secured” as well as simple contract law that consideration must be a transaction between the party’s concerned (i write a check to you and you transfer it without endorsement or indorse meant you are satisfied and security ends) and an originator is not a creditor so there is no secured contract in the first place (known as the boogy man $ giver never willing to show themselves to the homeowner to negotiate with)

    the only attorney worth there fee seems to be Glaski in CA and the res judicat jan 2010 in the 7 court of appeals (2 different servicers using the same NOD to foreclose)

  93. Can you Explain what the unlawful FCs are being used to cover up?

    I can!

    Many Blessings to All

  94. Explain to us why someone with current mortgage risks FC every 5yrs?

  95. Charles, I didn’t file a whistle blower claim.

    The difference between you and me is I wanted to payoff the mortgage so the taxpayers nor the investors would not suffer any losses.

    …..and you want the taxpayers to now pay you millions for something you know nothing about.

  96. RE: “KC we going to let the fantasy about 2009 …. ”

    You can convince yourself of what ever you need to hold on to your dream. It still does not make it true.

    The FACT remains … YES I DID!

  97. So now KC says she report the violations with FHA back in 2009 and at that point she turned it over to her attorney, but there was not even a process to whistle-blow at the agency that would handle it until mid Aug 2011 unless she would have used a Qui Tam. But she here one million time a day talking about some $140,000 estate problem and modification? Right

    Look here is the deal with these attorneys missing the point. I looked up at the Justice Dept on the JPMorgan $614 million settlement with the FHA & VA and it was the result of a private whistle-blower case, where whoever is going to get 10%-30% of the amount recovered.

    However these attorneys are not even looking at what the private citizen is receiving by way of reporting these crimes. So far the only way the Fed Gov is winning cases is because of whistle-blowers. There are 9 more probes of these banks and they will follow the path of JPMorgan but where are the attorneys other that Szymoniak and her group? They are winning and not some modification that bogus that the attorneys are getting for a handful that not even a refinance of the loan so the term can easily be cancelled as BOA been doing!

  98. I tried to pay off the debt ……. remember the Mortgage Charles?

    Now Charles, why don’t you explain to us why paying the principal amount wont get us Title to our Estates back?

    Better yet explain to us why someone with current mortgage risks FC every 5yrs?

  99. Comment only: One does not have to work “in the business” if that’s what you call it, to understand the BASIC pleadings and motions…IMHO

    The endless conversations regarding Ginnie, Fannie, Freddie…the entire free world knows they are not lenders. Moot point IMO

    If loans were NOT funded and that did happen, they are not securitized. Selling loans months after the origination or to third parties, give them no encumbrance…Seizures of loans are not securitized….most of that happened with non-lenders, read some transcripts. And the language is very specific and limits power to act: nominees, beneficiaries, sub-servicers, holders…all being used and manipulated, IMHO

    Most “servicers” regardless of what the paperwork says ARE debt collectors, an entirely different cat. The only way a PSA is relevant is with a contractual agreement from an underlying REMIC….. private trusts (REITS) are not the same and cannot be feigned under the guise of the REMIC or the IRS should be chasing them. IMHO

    It matters doing research on your party of default noticer…this is the big bang for your buck. Most times you will find forgeries, counterfeit documents, fabricated copies of documents with; wrong pagination, scribbled signatures, names misspelled, dates of transfer “completely out of date for an assignment”, POA’s that are partially hand written in from years prior, substitute trustees that are the same as the law firm, false statements, law firms with addresses in various states where they can file stuff-without your knowledge, hearsay evidence being submitted to the court, etc… the list is long. The rules are in place for a reason…IMHO

    In the end much of the stuff the “so called” experts here are talking about are contractual agreements within the system and relate only to the lenders, originators, pooling and service contracts, not our contracts. And further, if you cannot provide proof and tie the behavior to the reason your payments were not made or challenge the party asking for relief, you are toast! IMHO

    And gene, I find NO amusement in these challenges. Have some wine for me, would you? It is easy to sit around and talk about what you look at each day; it is quite another to delve into the inner workings of this and try to simplify it and present it as fact. At the end of the day keep it simple and know your case. Even if you are inadequate, the judge has a responsibility to treat a pro se with respect and flexibility…All the legal terms and wranglings matter, but not as much as your injury and IT IS there. IMHO

    This is not legal advice…knowing one’s case is vital…what happened to anyone else is moot, you are defending “your” position, as that’s how this game is played and it IS just a money game!

  100. @Johngault ,

    Thanks for looking ,, guess I’ll start hitting PACER , contacting Sand Canyon and the VEAL attorney..

  101. Let understand this about a MBS that the underlying collateral are the Notes and that why Ginnie Mae can never have them in the hand of another outside of the lender because it the only proof the Gov got that they even have some type of interest in the loans.

    The loan are the insurance policy for the 100% guaranty of the securities. If the loan are caught in a seizure by the bankruptcy court and Ginnie Mae does not have physical possession what do they have by way of a receipt that they paid for the loans? Nothing and the rule of UCC 3 which they are using to have some claim is their physical possession.

    So let take the WaMu situation, Ginnie got caught trying to cover its tracks but the exposure on the forged assignment is coming to bite them plus the JPMorgan admitting they did not purchase any loan, bring the question who does own the loan and why were they not a part of WaMu bankruptcy? It because Fannie, Freddie & Ginnie Mae claimed those loans. Now in order for them to own them they must have originated or purchase them. None of the 3 originates loans and Ginnie Mae does not buy or sell any home mortgage loans at all!

    So as you see Ginnie Mae got the problem that Wells Fargo is in possession of 1.3 million of the government insured loans that are titled in WaMu name or another bank WaMu purchase the loans from. So the loan are all endorsed in blank from WaMu as they were placed into the pool, and now that they are dead there no way to resign the blank Note ever, because the Note have been relinquish and Wells Fargo is holding the Notes for Ginnie Mae as the custodian of records.

    Now if you cannot figure out the dilemma from here there is no hope!

  102. Thks Gene I agree

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  103. KC we going to let the fantasy about 2009 when you can ever figure out your simply situation. I don’t know if a ever seen such a hater before. Understand this that somebody going to get paid, and that you got this hang up on money, why don’t you get rid on some of your and simply give that estate your money and be done with it? The feel you own then something so that money not an issue we you……giver it up!

    Gene if you know anything, know this from the JPMorgan $614 million for the FHA & VA loan claims they made. Two different programs but both are Ginnie Mae pooled, however the qualification for getting insured is different. You can falsify the FHA, but the insurance process for VA is receiving the VA certificate and the VA Funding fee for over or under 10% rating! So a VA loan going to start off the bat with insurance.

    What is the same is the way these loan cannot actual come out the pool because the full amount must be rendered, but Ginnie Mae does not actual have a way to return the Notes, so that way the large lenders never actual let the Note out of there hands and are declared the custodian of records. What exposes the game is is WaMu is dead and the loans were not in their possession, so the usual trick could not be done were no one would know the Notes ever left the lender hands.

    The local land recorded does not have a clue about securities so they never require the assignment change because they are not aware. It the shell game!

  104. Gene, to advanced for you?

    How about a brief essay about why the Estate Attorney can not represent the debtor/borrower?

    I will help you out … “Conflict of Interest”

  105. Charles, I don’t mean to be harsh with you but I was reporting in 2009 and they already knew. I had a long talk with FHA, told them what BAC was up to, … we had a long talk about TB&W and had a Good Laugh over who was claiming ownership of the loan. No claims had been made with the FHA at that point, and I requested that they contact ME if a claim was made and to DENY ANY CLAIM.
    After that my attorney took over.

    My concern for you Charles is that you have yourself convinced of something that is not true. They knew before I reported in 2009.

  106. The Winery’s Seasonal Specials this month are Peach and Strawberry Rhubarb.

  107. I told you I was just the entertainment, even Gene was smart enough to figure that out .. I know nothing, they tell me nothing, I give them everything, Except Legal Advise. LOL!

    Gene, here is a quiz for you.

    1. Thou shall not ……
    2. The state shall not …..
    3. Its Impossible for KC to be …….

  108. Had an extremely tough day, and decided I needed some amusement to relax. This thread has provided the needed amusement.

    I love reading comments from people who have never been in the business of lending, or have been involved with courts and foreclosures on a daily basis, or never been involved in securitization and GSEs trying to rationalize such absurd arguments.

    Though tnharry has not posted on this thread, he knows much of the legal issues. Though Charles Reed is incorrect about certain GSE theories he presents, he is correct about loan origination, warehouse lines of credit, who the originator is, sales and use of credit lines, etc.

    Now I will sit back, continue with a glass of wine, and wait for more amusing comments.

  109. RE: do you not see the good to millions for exposing the crime for what it is?

    KC… do you see the sales of uninsured loans to debt collectors?

  110. Charles, the part you have Wrong.

    RE: Let me be the first to say I told you so for what these lenders were doing.

    Trust Me! No you are NOT! Not by a long shot!

  111. KC I am not sure what you mean….however for whatever reason a Szymoniak or I have do you not see the good to millions for exposing the crime for what it is? If you look at the team Szymoniak got to write her complaint and the research, do you think that these folks would have touch it if there was not such a large reward.

    God did not say you should not be rich or he would not have favored King David. It not the money that sinful but what you do with it. People without money are always limited as to who the can help, but people with money are better prepared to help.

    Get over the amount and look at the exposure once everyone realizes the fraud that taken place! KC I am not downing you for wanting to be poor or middle class, but I been poor as a boy and middle class to this point in life, so being better off will not kill me also, but will make me better able to effect the changed I seen not get attention!

  112. JG, I couldn’t .. you know … IMPOSSIBLE!

  113. Charles, you are half right.

    Reading Szymoniak latest complaint and it all about the forged assignment these bums were using to foreclose illegally on government insured loan in these pool and claiming against the government insurances.

    Let me be the first to say I told you so for what these lenders were doing

  114. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~You are a Shining Star!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  115. Neidermeyer – after looking extensively, I figured out if I had anything, it was on my old computer, so it’s prob gone. Only thing I can think of is to muck around in AHMS’s DE bk. If you find anything, please share if you can without you know.

  116. Reading Szymoniak latest complaint and it all about the forged assignment these bums were using to foreclose illegally on government insured loan in these pool and claiming against the government insurances.

    Let me be the first to say I told you so for what these lenders were doing.

    So now we got to see if the Fed Gov is trying to give the lenders an out in saying these infraction where at the being and not at the end of the event. However it the ending events that cause the harm and not the infraction at the beginning.

    You can crash you own car intending to file an phony insurance claim, but if you don’t go through with the filings there no harm to the insurance company, but once you file the phony claim, that when the harm is started and the receiving of the funds complete the crime and the harm is realized!

  117. It’s very simple K C I write you a check & you sell it to somebody else and don’t endorse it can’t be cashed in since you’ve already been compensated The judges are not letting people keep their houses since it’s all Ponzi scheme on the Bankside Besides that I thought your asked to leave this blog over a year ago

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  118. While I’m at it – from LL’s post re: Veal:

    “Real party in interest analysis requires a determination of the applicable substantive law, since it is that law which defines and specifies the wrong, those aggrieved, and the redress they may receive. 6A Federal practice and Procedure sec 1543 at 480-481″

    “those aggrieved” = those INJURED

    One can’t be injured with no skin in the game, even if one is in poss of a(n) (alleged) bearer note. This is where, as I’ve posited in my lay opinion, the UCC Article 3 meets Rule 17 and its progeny (state court) and the UCC (default law) loses. if anyone can point out a case to me where a known thief found judicial support in enforcing a bearer note, I’d be more than interested in reading it, because I say that’s a myth, certainly if the thief wants a court’s help.

  119. neidermeyer – so far, I can find nothing else. I’ll keep looking. I didn’t write that, so it’s from some blog or article.

  120. Its ok Charles, I am a Big Girl, I can handle Brian.

    My husband on the other hand is much more suttle than I am,
    you can imagine his response.

    I’ll give you a hint Brian, … Sit on It and Spin!

    Because I was not the one who BK’ed your Estate,
    That was all your doings!

  121. Os Brian what are you doing in talking trash to KC?

  122. You & Mr. Reed need to not make this your personal contact place

    And KC I delete everything from you because you are on the other side I understand Sent from my iPhone

    >

  123. You bankrupted the Estate in Chapter 7.

    You could have satisfied unsecured debt in 36-60 months using your disposable income and when the CH11/13 is closed the of the unsecured debt is discharged.

  124. Ha KC let me know of an attorney inCA other than Glaski who will fight All they want is modification at best

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  125. One Last Thing Take #3

    I concur with Neil .. I Hope You kept the property maintained and the taxes/ paid.

    Have a Great Night All … Don’t get Snookered! Hire an Attorney!

  126. I keep sending them shit, deny, deny, deny…funny actually! Sometimes I do find humor in all of it, if I wasn’t burned out from time to time.

    Been to court a lot and deed office, copying files, investigating lawyers, background checks…etc…..whatever it takes. On and on! Oh well, no rest for the wicked.

  127. One last thing … lol

    File the NOA and NODs in the BS file after you deny the debt.
    Once a year .. every year.

  128. One last thing … Make sure you the Creditor (not useless Trustee) YOU are the Loss Payee.

    Every year they pull the switcheroo … and SF notifies me of the change.
    I call and change it back … after all I am the Grantor/Trustor/Settlor …..

  129. Poppy so you saying that the monies that Credit Sussie were not for funding the loans but were operating fund, but the business of NC is mortgage lending and assets would be whatever NC has, and it not like Credit Sussie walked into NC and kicked in the door and physically took possession of any assets at all.

    Did NC endorse the Note over to Credit Sussie? It sound more like this is what happen in a bankruptcy remote procedure. You problem like most people is that you had a loan and currently are living in a property you have not pay a payment on for 2yrs, and your in limbo until this BK says who is the owners of those asset that at the last moment they came up with probably a blank Note exchanged.

    But until the court decided what is what, what does a home owner ask the court to do? I sure any foreclosure action been halted for now. But without any harm so far to you what can you ask the court to do!

    KC answer that?

  130. Poppy .. if the arrogant punks cant get it by abandonment .. they pull out the ACE card … “Land Trustee Duties” … Maintain, Occupy, Taxes and Insurance.

    They are playing the Ins BS like they pulled on us.

    Put YOUR NAME FIRST AS THE PRIMARY POLICY HOLDER (not the debtor,,they are listed after you!) fax them a copy every year upon renewal.

    DEMAND YOUR INS CO REFUSE PAYMENTS FROM 3rd parties.
    PAY YOUR TAXES IN FULL, THE DAY THEY ARE DUE AND PAYABLE … 1ST DAY PAYMENT IS ACCEPTED.

  131. 3 State filings were thrown out KC, filed an appeal and lost!

    Removed to Federal in NC and the judge understood the entire thing AND allowed the stay, as did the Federal Court in Delaware-allow my late claim consideration and AP to move through the system, so far. I have had zero luck with State jurisdiction….12(b)(6)…quiet title-dismissed, Lis-Pendens- dismissed…on and on. Been through State Courts.

  132. Will somebody say …………

    “State Laws Vary” ?

    That YOU should consult an Attorney in the Jurisdiction your property is situated?

    Many Blessings to All!

    I have a Fundraiser Dinner Date tonight.

  133. Charles, yes I am still “for the time being” in possession. They just sent me a default notice, because they have to start the f/c ALL over again. Now, I am contesting the debt here in North Carolina and when the case was settled prior; the judge left a stay in place, until the Federal Court made a decision on New Century….but that hasn’t stopped them. They are punks, arrogant and moving through multiple courts at the same time…..really? You head needs to be like Linda Blair, a 360 to watch everything.

    The stay was lifted in one court and on hold in the other…very confusing stuff, actually.

    My claim is valid and I do have a loss, Charles. My down payment is missing, payments,….where did they go, if they were never applied? upgrades lost, maintenance, taxes-insurance (if they f/c)…loan not defaulted by me, months after signing. And what about time, travel costs, filings fees, punitive damages, actual damages, credit entries…multiple servicers threatening me, even telling me they will trespass, cause they were told by someone the property was abandoned. What? My response to that: police were called, report was made and I lettered them up and called them and politely told them of the consequences of smashing my door in, given I have a carry permit and am a very good shot, where I am single. Really! You have no idea Charles…this is much bigger than securitization, assignments and what happened way back then.

  134. Federal Court is Brutal and Expensive.

    Separate you claims .. State from Federal

    You have all the information/evidence and the right claims, but they are incomplete, and you are presenting them all wrong.

    Your Claims are brought under STATE LAW. Fee Simple

  135. Charles, please, please read some of the transcripts of NC..I cannot explain anymore. The paperwork is IN my possession, as is transcripts, evidence, seizure, repurchase agreement, etc, etc, etc…this is the problem….ALL THE LIES! Nothing is consistent. And all of that contradicts what I have in the court in North Carolina. I cannot explain it, neither can the judge, from what I can tell.

    AND the line of credit to Credit Suisse WAS for funding, if I am understanding it?

  136. RE: Poppy the only thing that troubles me is right now as long as your in the home and there been no foreclosure, then there not damage,

    RE: Judge to UKG, the only thing that troubles me is right now as long as your in the home and there been no foreclosure, then there not damage (harm),

    Comments?

  137. Past the TRO thing…got it. No lawyer on the Federal Court thing…most are afraid to take it and go against New Century, TRS Holdings, Chapter 11… and I’m broke?

  138. Go take Nap Charles.

    Poppy ..
    Who deposits what into the depositors account?

  139. Poppy the only thing that troubles me is right now as long as your in the home and there been no foreclosure, then there not damage, because your not out the home. How do you question financing until the BK court make a decision.

  140. @ JohnGault ,,, I’m going way back here but on Neils “VEAL” thread at https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/game-over-veal-case-vindicates-every-point-reported-on-livinglies/?relatedposts_exclude=23251 you posted …

    **********************
    johngault, on June 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm said:

    @ Trucly P, Veal attorney, etal
    On info and belief:

    American Home Mortgage Servicing went bankrupt thru the Delaware Bankruptcy courts in 2007. Its name and other assets were liquidated and purchased by Walter Ross. He created a new corporation with the same name but without any assignment of mortgages from the old unrelated corporation to his new and entirely different corporation. Walter Ross had purchased Option One from H&R Block and Option One was dissolved as an independent corporation. Without any assignment of any mortgage Option One ceases to exist though ‘some’ of its assets were purchased by Walt Ross who formed an entirely different corporation with the same name, Option One. The AHMS and the Option One corporations in the Veal case are NOT the same corporations to whom Veal owed the money. Walt Ross is pulling a fast one here.
    **********************

    Do you have anything more on this statement? or is this the entirety of it?

  141. Poppy here is the problem I am is that the loan is only first between you and New Century who should be the originator on the Note period. Whether or not NC had operating cost loans, such as a line of credit should not have anything to do with you because the property could not start out having NC as the “lien holder” and a sub lien holder.

    Its either NC is the lien holder or Credit Sussie is! I see Credit Sussie seizing the loans but I don’t see illegal how this can be because they were not the originators of the loan. This is not a situation where they were the lender and NC was the broker who just a subcontractor of the actual lender.

    I don’t think it anyway possible for Credit Sussie to be able to keep the loans and they always knew the risk they took in being a warehouse line provider.

    However as NC is in this bankruptcy action, your problem come I would that it determine that the loan could have been sieved leaving them with NC. You hope if the clowns (NC) went out of business. All I can see that the BK court allows NC to sell the Notes to another and those proceeds are turn over to the court. But I see Credit Sussie not wanting that to happen because what are these loan worth in this market?

  142. And Poppy, I don’t believe in torture. I prefer a clean cut.
    Hire yourself a new attorney and End the Torture.

  143. Poppy, amend the TRO, you want a PRO until you croak.

    You cant take with you anyway … Right?

  144. Dag Gone Stubbern Pride Ridden Moral Debtor wont file BK on Me!
    He wants to pay his Creditor back. And he does… one inch at a time.

    The Creditor benefits and Retires rather than being used in a conspiracy to commit a crime.

    I wonder why they didn’t come after the Estates rents? 🙂

    I may be getting old .. but I have a lot of Life left in Me!

  145. “they were not going to pay New Century when they are seizing them”

    They LENT New Century lines of credit, the one I am speaking of was $100,000,000.00. There was a repurchase agreement, which New Century filed bankruptcy to avoid….they then seized multiple notes FOR collateral ONLY, per Trustee of bankruptcy court. The note was “never” to be moved from bk…it was supposed to be held, until the creditors reimbursement was ruled on, by the judge. That did not happen. It was moved and now I have had to file all over the place to stop default notices, hearings, requests for summary judgments….then ask for TRO, injunctions, claims, AP, breach of contract, etc…I did not find out I was a creditor until 2013…go figure? It actually came about from someone else who is in the same court from another state, when she was looking at exhibits, evidence…

  146. Lack of Want to Prosecute ..
    Failure to Prosecute ..
    Failure to Procure a Proper Judicial FC
    FOS to SOL

    The Title Issues .. So many of them! Its like Neil said … the Titles have to be reset back to the Last Legal Transaction.

  147. Won in NC with lineage, paperwork…very, very detailed. It stopped at mediation. Breach of contract suit! I only got arrears removed, credit file erased and lawyers fees…it was considerable. FYI: Pro se-Filed myself, responded and wrote motions and used lawyer for the final, procedural stuff here in NC.

    I have not gotten anything in Federal Court, pro se…under consideration by the judge. That case is different, goes to seizure, party servicing, funding, fraud, etc…this one goes way back…

  148. They dismissed the case 4yrs ago and didn’t take me back to court.

  149. What is unreasonable about getting back what was diverted/ stolen and crashed?

    Is asking for Repairs to Title to Much?

  150. Poppy if you won, I am not doubting you…so let talk about what won your case which look straight forward if Credit Sussie seized these loan as which had to be done with blank endorsed Notes as they were not going to pay New Century when they are seizing them. So I don’t see ever Credit Sussie ever being able to have an assignment placed in their name, nor some servicer working for them!

    So what did you win with?

  151. I understand Poppy, … I suspect the details of the mod/settlement were for BOAs benefit and not yours.
    My attorney battled with BOA flavor of the Month for years, ….
    Apparently BOA thought we were being unreasonable …… ?????

  152. Yeah, I know, but the judge is playing this out in Federal Court…watching him very carefully. The truth; I want the trial, with a jury…looking at filing a Writ if he tries to pull a fast one! The judges ARE a crap shoot and count on you not knowing…I may be lacking in procedure and trial issues, but dumb, not so much!

    And I read this stuff to exhaustion…I have a chance. I will fight to my last breath…getting short on that today, LOL

  153. Defendant transferred the Plaintiffs Note without the Express Consent of the Creditor Plaintiff. nor the consent from the Creditors Investors and Beneficiaries
    …UTT …OLE

  154. As a Creditor Poppy, you should know that you are Satisfied per say…… 🙂

  155. Sorry, KC mentioned it…I just asked what it was.

  156. Poppy, you have it RIGHT!

    But I don’t make deals with the DEVIL!

    Its a Good Thing to, look what has happened to those who do?

  157. Yeah, you need a lot on this site…Jeez! Read carefully folks, before you engage

  158. Go back to bed Charles. Sweet Dreams!

  159. Charles, I AM a creditor, not a debtor AND won a significant settlement with BOA, NA (signed a disclosure to not speak about the terms) and they keep at it, they do not learn. Trying to manipulate at each angle with CWHLS, Ocwen, SPS, AWL…you name it.

    I hate putting this here, because I am no expert, but jeez…I know some of what I am talking about! And EVERY single case is different!

  160. Poppy, Got Coffee?

    Poppy, on March 1, 2014 at 10:48 am said:

    Okay KC a 1003…laymen’s language, please. Do not do codes…too much paperwork, brain is old!

    LOL!!!

  161. Since I didn’t have $236,000 in cash, I had no choice but to use the title as collateral, but I couldn’t get it or get it insured.

    Another 12 months go by because BAC refused payments.
    Fees continue to Add Up ..
    ButtButty Attorney tries to pull a Fast Pitch and go to court without Notice.
    I got Notice alright and went straight back to our attorney.
    That was April 2010 … I turned over tens of thousands of dollars.

    They appreciated the Gift so Much … they accelerated the loan on the taxes and ins.

  162. Charles, what are YOU talking about? I never asked about a 1003, KC DID! Please read carefully, before making comments.

  163. Poppy your going to get mad but your floating all over the place with this 1003. People were not qualified in the manor you thinking as the loan were process through automatic under writing systems LP or Du and Wells Fargo had its own automatic underwriting system. Exact property were never needed for a pre-approval so I don’t know what selling proposed loan amount do when a property has not even been establish!

    There are thing that are winning for “investors” and homeowner but chasing who allowed who what monies to fund loan involve the records of how many banks or financial units, when homeowner cannot even get a copy of their Note, yet your talking of getting record of entity not even involved in your complaint.

    This is why this mess has taken so long because instead of following what winning right now, people want to invent something that far out of their knowledge but involve corporation you got no proof are involved in anything.

  164. Its Music Time. Martial Law by George Clinton

    NEVER AGAIN

  165. Oh… My New Loan … was contingent to Good Title.

  166. DW, the appraisal was $20,000 to High.
    Our offer was countered before the appraisal.
    We accepted the counter.
    The Appraisal comes in less than the counter offer we accepted.
    We pay the difference between the appraisal and the sale price in CASH .

    12 Months later,…..
    I had to cover the
    12 months missing payments,
    late fees and legal fees,
    the $20,000 appraisal difference
    and 20% or ( $38,000) to get a loan and pay his loan off.
    ( Total $87,000 +)

    Original Loan Amount was $149,000 just 12 months earlier. ???

    Original Capital Plender wanted me to refi my husbands loan for
    $236,000 or $236,000 cash for title.

    149,000 plus 87,000 = $236,000

  167. We really need to get back on track here and talk about Sale/Lease back and the resulting “Installment Sale Contract”.

    Oh wait .. We have to close Escrow from the Purchase/Sale Contract first…… Right?

  168. It takes something of equal or greater value …
    But RE prices slumped and so did the purchase and refis

    ThinK living Irrevocable Trusts .. and like value/higher value exchanges in and out of Trust.

    Trust NPV Due
    (incoming payment streams for intentional benefit of a “party” of that payment stream.).

    VS PV

    Investors don’t invest in Trusts with negative PVs ..

    But Maybe SumButty was embezzling another parties money and buying them…………… while lining their pocket along the way… cause he had inside knowledge of the likely hood of failure?

    Insure it 20 to 1? (place bet .. 20 to 1)?

  169. Poppy, do you know how the 1031 exchange works?

    That’s how they got away with it…. at least until borrowers actually bought a cheaper property.

    Example:
    Borrower looks at a couple of houses with a realtor. No offers.
    Realtor sends them to NCM to prequalify for $106,000.
    NCM approves borrower for $120,000 FHA.
    Borrowers decide after reviewing their budget this is not affordable to them so they don’t buy right away.

    Several months later the young borrowers find a property for $82,000 that was much more affordable for their budget and make their FIRST offer.
    Ocwen /US Bank REO. Conventional Mortgage.

    How can you do a 1031 exchange of equal or greater value when $82,000 is less than and not equal to or greater in value?

    This was 06-07 before NCM was shut down.

    Now think about what went into MERS and at the fraudulent appraisal values never the less ….. and what it takes to get them out?

  170. Poppy the 1003 is the Uniform Residential Loan Application pages 1 of 4 and for Fannie Mae & it is the form 65 for Freddie Mac. Its your application for the loan.

  171. 1003 mortgage loan applications,
    ~ More Specific ~
    The ones used for Pre-Approvals Only.

  172. Okay KC a 1003…laymen’s language, please. Do not do codes…too much paperwork, brain is old!

  173. OOPS!

    I should have also suggested underwriting costs too.

  174. For some with a UCL claim to consider:

    McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5387836216712368301&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

  175. Does anyone have any idea how many 1003s used for pre-approval that went thru the underwriting system and were drawn on without a closing ever taking place at all?

    I know of some with New Century Mortgage .. but they have that part of me duct tapped.

  176. yeah, well I ask a lot of questions too…and I’m not going to stop…hang in there.

    Just my opinion, but a suspense account always leads to f/c…that’s the point.

    Just reading a story about BOA being fined 45 Billion…ha, ha, ha…they bought CW servicing platform for $450.00 per loan (if my math is good) 4.2 billion for 9.1 million loans…now if they pay 45 billion in fines, it is $4,945.00 per loan to service. Quite a deal by any standard. IMHO

    Based on the buy numbers they made their money back with ONE payment…

  177. johngault you mention from a hidc to a holder and but to a hidc. This cannot legally happen because one the hidc sign endorsing the notes in blank without a purchase it impossible to never have the Note reendorsed as they is a gap of the blank endorsement.

    As the entity that possesses the blank Note but without consideration of a sum, it separates the debt from the note without anyway that the now blank guy to allow the reuniting of the two.

    Example is the loans cannot be pulled out a pool unless full face value of the amount that owed. The amount that owed is to the investors and that debt is not the borrowers debt but the lender turned “issuer” of the securities. But as a provision of the securities pooling agreement the relinquishing of the Note. The holder of the note by not purchasing the Note and is not mention on this note/contract has no right to collect the debt because the debt was never purchase, and they don’t have the ability to return the Note as the note is held as the underlying collateral for the securities.

    The and I mean Ginnie Mae is trapped by out smarting themselves. Ginnie Mae tries to example that they allow the lender to stay in title for THINGS that my arise, however title is a state issue which only the owner of the debt cannot be the owner of the lien, and that is for the party that have a legal contract/note and possession the debt.

    Once it laid out in front of Congress heads should roll because Ginnie Mae explanation makes no sense!

  178. Just for Laughs

    LOST:

    Invisible PETE female, around 50 years old, goes by the name “Whereareyou”, last heard around the downtown area, very energetic and playful-loves to play hide and seek.
    If found, please contact her Title Attorney.

  179. Poppy, … Yes, but I tried to work with them first. I was not going to hold them accountable for what CW did. I offered full tender in exchange for title… but they ignored me, well not completely … the did send NOD for escrow shortage and tried to fc again.

    I Just didn’t understand what in tarnations their problem was. Is sure in tarnations was NO MISTAKE!!

    Could it be that they were Liable for the Fraud on the Face of the Contract? Is they why the switched it out with a fake?

    I think to much …. and I’ve been told I ask a lot of questions.

    Practice what you Teach?

  180. Thanks, Bijaya need all the encouragement I can get!

    Hey KC a suspense account with BOA? Have you considered a suit for breach…? Just asking.

  181. BACs records showed the Jan-March 09 payments in suspense account and the Jan 08- Dec 08 payments in default.

    Suspense account balance plus 12 missing payments make a current loan… Right?

  182. Good job poppy

  183. They are called Limbo loans per say…..

    Closed Nov 07.

    Payments began Jan 08 to CWHLS.
    When BAC took over CWHLS the default amount BAC claimed due = equaled the payments made to CWHLS.

    I faxed them proof of the payments but they turned the other cheek and refused less than full payment than the Amount They Claimed Due. We Played this Game for a Year while charges incurred,

    I got word BAC was trying get fc judgment behind our back. Our Attorney said .. Pay Them Everything the Demand, to Be Safe… I paid them Extra and offered Full Tender!

    I don’t do Business with Buttwipes!!

  184. New century bk case perpetuates The fraud on the homeowner

  185. Clarify the SEC…the loan “appears” to be in there, however, many of the numbers are missing, didn’t make sense before. Now, I know this loan never the seen the entry of the pool, ever. The dates are telling, they have lied to the SEC.

    If the loan was delinquent it didn’t qualify…as I said, unbelievable.

  186. New Century, have a claim and AP in the Delaware Court, got an evidentiary hearing and discovery with ledger from Ocwen-July 2012…defaulted October 01, 2007…

    Note was “seized” by Credit Suisse, March 2007, got a tax statement from Carrington, SPS and Ocwen for Dec 31, 2007…SEC in pool, but it didn’t open until August 01, 2007-Closed August 31, 2007, defaulted loan October 01, 2007…payments current, have receipts, zero balance on ledger. Getting all this? Repurchase agreement from Credit Suisse sent/faxed from a dentist office in NJ, on a Sunday 6:00p.m…..signed in 2005, when they needed to be signed for 2007 and in SEC file in 2007.

    Payment coupons were from New Century in April 2007, then SPS July 2007, then Ocwen November 2007…all court discovery stuff.

    HUD says Deutsche bank funded, RBC funded 2 HUDS…sold to a pool in December 26, 2006…closing attorney notes, bottom right hand corner of statement, in blue ink!

    Kept getting late notices, couldn’t understand at the time…what? Late payment notices?…court says New Century was taking payments and escrows and not applying them. Suit was filed, don’t recall who.

    Court affirms lines of credit were not used for loans, but company expenses, per transcript. Some 27,000 loans at the same time my paperwork was initiated were not funded. 6 states cease and desist orders with a Criminal Grand Jury investigation and CA was pulling their license…all verified.

    Exhaustive research and I am certain about much of this…hard to believe, but the research, all consuming is “unbelievable”…if I didn’t have it, see it with my on eyes, I’d call anyone else a liar!

  187. “Market movement”. This is one of the major reasons I have trouble with this lightening-fast-track to securitization. Let’s say the average return of a group of loans is 6%. The market fluctuates minute by minute, actually second by second. Sure, banksters could lock in a price for 30, 60 days, or even longer. But the longer the lock in, the higher the rate = $$ and often if not always, locks of more than 10 days require a lock fee = big bucks. Anyway, “B”, the bigger guy or even aggregator has that group of 6% loans. Say there are 4000 loans in the group. Thanks to MERS et al, they skipped assgts of the coll instruments. But still, the notes had to be endorsed from B to C to the trusts and delivered along the trail. How long you think that takes? Right.
    So I’d bet one of two things: they decided ABC Schmoe was a mutual
    custodian for B and C (if not A and D, also) or they just got A, the note payee, to endorse in blank and called it a day. Swell, so what about paying for the notes? A promise to pay is consideration acc to the UCC (opinion). However, also opinion because I’m not a UCC scholar and neither are most people in this act, succinctly and unfortunately), one may only be a hidc to the extent of actual payment. When transfer is made from a hidc to a mere holder and then to a hidc, that’s where the UCC gets complicated unless one is well-versed. I used to think that no one could have a better interest than the guy before him, but now i don’t think that’s true IF the transferee meets the hidc tenets of article 3 – and that’s IF article 3 applies to these particular notes at all. But what I’m trying to say is I just don’t see how physically what needed to be done could have been done in the amt of time it needed to be done, and definitely when the cost of money changes by the second. In fact, I’d say it’s impossible…UNless they tried electronic trading on notes which couldn’t be traded electronically. So same thing: impossible, didn’t happen. And I’m of a mind today they didn’t want it to happen so they could avail themselves of third party payoffs and now want to lay the
    dredges on the trusts (which isn’t as bad on FNMA loans because of FNMA’s guarantee).

  188. KC it’s not an abandonment it was under duress devoid of flippin due process with fraud upon the court in executing a business plan. And I’m on it still, never say die

  189. Poppy – oops. I shouldn’t have referred to NC’s warehouse lender as such, since you said their loans from whomever were to operate the business (think that’s what you said). NC had a warehouse line from someone, or I can’t imagine why not. They probably said to some other dummies “look, we’ve got zillions in the pipeline (but already subject to the w/h lender’s claim) and can pay you back, but then NC couldn’t unload the loans. Sometimes a lender will sit on its loans waiting for a better price. That’s been known to be deadly as it can get. Say the marketing guy guessed wrong on which way the market would move. Say he has 20 million in closed loans at 6%. Then the market moves to 6 1/2% when he was expecting 5 1/2%, in which case, his loans would have look pretty good (paper at 6% commands a premium when the market is lower than 6%). But 6 1/2, if he had 6% paper, would mean he’d have to pay to sell them, probably around 2 pts per loan.

  190. Poppy:

    “New Century also agreed to sell its loan servicing unit to Carrington Capital Management LLC for around $139 million and a handful of loans and residual interest in some trusts to Greenwich Capital for $50 million, pending bankruptcy approval.”

    I don’t know how or why a current loan could be shown in default, but I’m wondering if you have looked at New Century’s bk to see what happened with what (since you feel some loans were still sitting on their warehouse line). Did the warehouse lender get the loans in their bk? Taylor-Bean, for instance, made FHA loans that weren’t insurable (and therefore not marketable) and were pretty much paying people to refi with a conventional loan to get those loans off their warehouse lines (didn’t help – because of alleged “appropriation of funds, they were raided and closed by the FBI) Sounds like the loans Century made were so bad no one would take them and or their particular funding m.o. left others doubtful about legit transfers (imagine that).
    But I’d have to say New Century didn’t borrow on anyone’s behalf but its own. If a warehouse lender were stupid enough (which I just can’t believe, at least not without a big gun’s guarantee) to loan a lender moolah without collateralizing the lender’s product, I’d sure be surprised.

  191. Charles, I am not pissed…Jeez. And I “never” said any banker told me anything about the securtization, trusts, etc…they just put me in the direction of information about who, when, where…that type of thing. But, I have also had the ear of a lawyer friend, who is a professor, not a trial person…they have UCC stuff, tort information, etc…but I have a paralegal experience, which has aided me and that’s how I know many of these folks.

    My employment background has helped tremendously in networking with others, who have valuable “insight” and think out-of-the-box, which is what I am looking for. An attorney has strict rules of compliance, I do not and I can feign stupid…which by all standards, I am.

  192. Skipped at Inception making it Impossible for Escrow to have closed or for an Estate to have been bore …

    Missing Conveyances and Re-Conveyances

  193. The Trustee deeds grant rights to the Land in fee simple.
    Making you the new Trustee. Its that Simple.

    No Warranty Deed

    No Trust
    Trust Fail

  194. Poppy I never said do listen to other but if those others are telling you that these lenders have foreclosed lawfully and the securities all worked under the color of the law and that what your telling me about this pinhead VP (in the banking world everybody is a VP of something) I am not buying it because I know for a fact what taken place.

    I even forgot why I am fighting with you in the first place? Was it something about your case I sad that you did not agree with? Bring me up to date on what it was that pissed you off!

  195. Poppy.. you crack me up! Now run those names and compare them with the mortgage broker/lender/funding co and law firm.

    Most are now have merged or operate as fka or even aka LLC or LLPs

  196. Okay, did I tell you something? Speaking to Charles, he appears annoyed anyone would speak to any banker besides him? Just because they say; you may want to look here or there, so what?

    Anyway, I talk to anyone about this, anywhere…and keep confidences if necessary. But I look at the losers and winners, there is information everywhere. Like I spent all day today looking at lost cases, pretty informative, learned a thing or two.

    This is just how I am, a pack rat and love information. I always see the glass half-full…I hope I can continue that path, some days it’s difficult.

    In my life I have met many….had a colorful life so far and appearances can be deceiving. The cover of the book does not always tell the story… I am on the path I have chosen…no matter what the outcome, I gave them a hell of a run for their money!

  197. Its like being ” almost pregnant” except they skipped in inception.

    A False Pregnancy of sorts … with all the benefits of the Baby.

  198. Doing some detailed digging: 2005 AWL-lender a/k/a CW, Nominee- MERS, Trustee services-Trustee; CWHLS- Beneficiary 2009, Brock & Scott- Trustee a/k/a/Trustee services-transferred to Lisa Campbell of Brock & Scott/husband is manager of firm and signor-notary in 2009, DOT Transferred on 10/02/2013 by Lisa Campbell, scribble by Cecelia Rodriguez (employed by Silicon Valley Bank from 09/2011 to Present) or VP of MERS (pick your position here) – nominee by AWL of 2005…notarized by L. A. Llanos of BOA, initialed, not signed with the initials incorrect…L.l.lanos…..not L.A. Llanos, so, any ideas folks?

    This is the short list…

  199. PETE is Imaginary, because he can not exist until he exists.
    Its like being ” almost pregnant” ? LOL!

  200. Poppy, Nobody tells me anything, I think to much about things, things like Where is PETE?

    So Who are you talking about?
    Who told you what?
    Did you find your PETE?
    Did PETE authorized MERS to fc on his land if the Trustee failed to perform his duties?
    Who appointed a sub trustee?
    Did PETE authorize MERS authority to name sub trustee?
    Did PETE make MERS his beneficiary?
    What about PETEs family?

    .. Is PETE an Imaginary Twin Friend ?

  201. And Charles, ALL information, IMHO, should be accepted and analyzed, good, bad or otherwise, not just yours. With all due respect!

  202. If it weren’t for these two people I would be way behind the curve on this…friends for 20+ years, as long as I play dumb… and I will “never” reveal them.

  203. Leah, you point to one of the quintessential problems homeowners and some attorneys alike have. Recontrust claims to have a home retention department. Really? A dot trustee? The ONLY thing a dot trustee is authorized to do, at least in a dot, is foreclose. “MERS” claimed in at least one (so who knows, maybe thousands and thousands) bk case that it had a BK dept. If this stuff doesn’t fit neatly into a “fraudulent representation” claim, then it’s an esoteric issue to try to research. At any rate, when called on it outside a hearing or trial (and actually, they do it even in court), they simple “correct” the
    misrepresentation or allege someone else is just a sub-agent, and that without even proving their own agency or authority. There is not one detail of an action out of the banksters that may go unchallenged. Good luck. I said this the other day, but I think it
    bears repeating: this isn’t a subprime mtg or housing crisis; it’s a
    Predatory Lending Crisis and that’s being soft.

  204. Its hard to believe, the FDIC (aka the taxpayers) seized the banks and gained control of the assets.

    There was not a transfer to Chase prior to seizer
    There was not transfer to Chase from FDIC to Chase after …

    Cloudy Issues?

    Some dirty greedy butties comes along and tries to steal it “for free” for themselves and away from the taxpayers?

  205. Is it possible these issues are why the property sits vacant, title still in owners name, taxes and such incurring in owners name after they abandon it or get illeagly evicted?

    So many Questions… $150.00 an hr

  206. Poppy look at the link KC just provided about JPMorgan handling of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) loans. What people did not realized was that Wells Fargo Bank back on Jul 31, 2006 told over the mortgage servicing of 1.3 million government insured loans (FHA, VA, USDA).

    So the Sept 25, 2008 seizure of WaMu happen and Wells Fargo continued to be the mortgage servicer but as everybody thought JPM had purchase all these loan it in fact did not because the loans were all in securities that Ginnie Mae already had physical possession of these blank Notes, as the Notes were the underlying collateral to the securities.

    So Wells Fargo was foreclosing on these loan as if they were the owner. Just as this case the rest will unravel because JPM and that deal cannot hide the fact that no loan were purchase.

    This is why I am saying I am not listening to some President or VP of these banking industry people because they all got something to lose, when the truth is told!

    KC thank for the piece!

  207. I wonder how the state laws vary on abandonment claims .. a year? 2yrs? 3yrs? before title is cleared?

    What about the time to file a claim in an interest in an abandoned property ….. (before a sub trustee could grant and “Warrant Good Title” 1yr?3yr? 5yr? 6yr?

    50 states and fifty choices ..

  208. Here .. under new state law …. The abandonment claims being filed on vacant properties have been changed drastically. One new change is .. that now .. if no one has resided in the home for 6month .. it is considered abandoned. Another change would be the period of time someone who holds an interest in the property has to claim it before the title can be cleared and the property resold.

    And to think .. we had planned to live at the lake house six months out of the year when my husband retires. What do you think about the idea of a Rent Free House Sitter 6months out of the year? Maybe a low income collage student?

  209. I know, He He He….okay Charles.

  210. Did the FDIC sue/settle with the Banks for claiming ownership and slandering the titles? (lack of standing)

  211. SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED TO JPM BASED ON ISSUES RAISED BY NARDI DEPOSITION
    JPM admits that it was NOT the “successor in interest” to WaMu, and that it only purchased certain defined assets and liabilities. This admission, of course, is in direct contradiction to the position taken by JPM in thousands of foreclosures nationally where it asserts that it is the “successor in interest” to WaMu

    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=543

    Utt Ole

  212. Hey Poppy- give chas Reed some breathing room. While there are a number of people at FDIC,DOJ,OTC, FHLB, ASLA who would most likely be referred to as experts, we haven’t heard a peep from them, now, have we? Do you think any of the employees at these agencies are going to come on this or any other blog and corroborate Charles Reeds statements or add to them? Fer cryin out loud

  213. Behave Poppy! …………. 🙂

  214. You’re getting sleepy, Charles, very, very sleepy…OMG. I can see why they never made you a VP, another volatile character. LOL

  215. Its music time. Bulletproof by George Clinton

    NEVER AGAIN

  216. Poppy if you looking for a fight bring it on, however what I am saying is that every financial expert sat by and watched the financial crisis happen and did not know what hit them and its over five years later and I don’t want to hear what these clown have to say because it their pockets we are after, so there is no reason now I am taking what some VP telling me how thing are going down. Plus this VP would not have knowledge on Ginnie Mae end of the operation!

  217. “I am the leading expert in this crap outside Ginnie Mae on Ginnie Mae pools”

    WHAT?

  218. Picture of the Glaski landscape in CA –

    The California courts have blessed 10’s of thousands of foreclosures with potential clouded titles for the sake of expediency over “finality between parties” due to a 1908 decision that this arrangement is in today’s best ‘public interest’. A trustee can’t determine if the beneficiary declaring a default is legitimate, or that the beneficiary’s “agent” that substituted them as trustee was authorized to do so; and the title companies don’t know about unrecorded assignments. So how is a member of the public supposed to determine the legitimacy of the title they are considering bidding on at a trustee’s sale auction?

  219. Ian I am talking about securities and as these thing are being sold, if cannot have another master but to that securities. So if the lender/issuer got an outside loan on the loan he placed in the securities, and that lender goes in bankruptcy or is seized and shut down, if there were these other loan on the loan in the securities then that shut down that securities because the entity that would have had the loan on the loan in a pool who want its money. It would be the bank paying that payment and not the securities paying a payment to some other lender.

    I don’t think none of these issues are about a trust because the trust is not purchasing these loan that are in the pools, because the loan are the underlying collateral for the pool. And the purchasers of the securities is not buying mortgage loans, but they are buying securities that in the case of Ginnie Mae securities is guaranteed 100% as oppose to a property that now value at 50% that you need to foreclose upon!

    The NOD must have the owner of the loan notifying the homeowner!

  220. Poppy I don’t care how many VP you know as I am the leading expert in this crap outside Ginnie Mae on Ginnie Mae pools. Now that not saying that I know every thing about it but what I am after, and that is how the loan are placed in and out of the securities and who actual is authorize to foreclose and receive the insurance claim.

    Now as I was not in the other statement talking about lender insurance but hazard insurance on the home, which is due each year as with property taxes. But on government insured FHA loan their is Mortgage Premium Insurance (MIP) that is paid monthly and there is not going to be a escrow waive with these loans.

    All these Presidents and VPs watch this crash along with the Fed, and who getting paid for uncovering this crap are the whistle-blower who are not all knowing about every thing, but they are all knowing about the particular area they are reporting on.

    Let look at Sherry Hunt that expose Citi who was this mid level career processor who was hardly a genius, but she is $34 million richer today before taxes and legal fees.

    Just look at Lynn Szymoniak who is not the sharpest attorney in the shed, as she was being foreclosed on herself, and she hardly was setting the legal world on fire at 100yrs old (kidding about the age 99 maybe). But Szymoniak if the lawsuit is true, she received her information from her client and run with it.

    I am not trying to say I know everything about Ginnie Mae, however I don’t want to know everything about them, but what my study been is about how Ginnie Mae thinks they own the Notes and what exactly is that ownership? They don’t have ownership of the debt, simply because they never purchase the debt and that the end of the story!

  221. Charles Reed- so since every subprime lender/originator had unpaid lines of credit when they filed Ch11/or ceased operations, then none of the notes used as collateral for said lines could have been placed/sold into a Trust? Even if the same trust was identified in
    The NOD?

  222. Ian you cannot place a loan in a securities that got a debt associated with it, meaning that lender cannot owe money against it (not talking about the home owners loan). This issue is about somebody having a issue with New Century and Credit Sussie coming in and seizing the loan that NC had not sold yet. It loans are sitting in the companies possession at the time of the bankruptcy they are at the court determination as to how assets are handled.

    This is why a Ginnie Mae has the lender endorse in blank the Note and relinquish it them plus had HUD11711A signed as these are bankruptcy remote procedure to keep out the hands of other creditors.

    Had Ginnie Mae not allowed the transferred of the blank Note to Wells Fargo as the custodian of record for the Washington Mutual Bank loan, those Notes were all signed in blank and per UCC 3 the entity that is in physical possession is owner of the Notes. So if the bankruptcy court got its hand on blank Note without Ginnie Mae having any proof they purchase the loan, then they become shit out of luck.

    The warehouse lender can show at lease it provided a loan to New Century!

  223. FYI Charles…some of this comes from a REAL Vice president of Newport Credit Union and another VP of a bank, which I have to keep still about or he can lose his position….

    No disrespect intended.

  224. Lenders taxes and insurance have nothing to do with this Charles…it is my understanding the lender has required insurance for 80% of the loan amount only! Then taxes paid are from the manner in which the holding, sales or retention of the note in a trust is pathed…REMIC vs. REIT….either way, not my issue essentially.

    Jeez, Charles I have the paper work in my possession and the court documents. Come on…It matters in the court proceedings

  225. Charles Reed- if the mortgage/DOT on your home is secured or collateralized by your promissory note ( one house, one note) then how can an originator further pledge that note as collateral for a line of credit which they have to pay to someone else?

  226. Poppy I don’t know what the hell your talking about! There are always taxes and insurances, as I did not say that all or any were escrow, as some are escrow and some are not. However the fact that some are not escrow does not change the fact that there are going to be insurance if there is a loan on the properties, and unless there is a homestead exemption by the state there going to be taxes.

    I not sure what you mean about lines of credit not being tied to loan, other than when I was talking about a bankruptcy court seizing these loans. The creditor would fight for those loan if a bank was filing, because the warehouse line creditor extended a line to the bank and that debt was not paid back, so the creditor are going after whatever asset the mortgage company got!

    I am not lending you $100 million which you draw $100 million and you go belly up and I am claiming loan you got on hand that are not sold?

  227. iwantmynpv go to wiki and look up Ginnie Mae (government only insured loan pooled) and you will read that Ginnie Mae was the first to sell MBS, not I not talking about any thing else like MBS, but I am talking about exactly MBS.

    Don’t tell me I am wrong on something calling it a Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) is the same concept as a GOB with it not MBS. Your talking about a GOB but a GOB is not a MBS, and I did not say that Ginnie Mae was the first to sell a GOB as I never mention GOB that you say is something like a MBS.

    Look 95% of all government insured loans FHA, VA & USDA (RA) are placed in a Ginnie Mae MBS and are insured 100% principle balance and is why HUD is receiving money back in these settlement from the lender such as BOA in 2012 for $1 billion & Citi $158 million & JPMorgan here recently for $614 million.

    I did not mention Fannie or Freddie and was only talking about government insured loan. Now if you can find where someone other than Ginnie Mae was the first to sell MBS, then direct me to that statement, but don’t insert some other like thing!

  228. “Remember with a mortgage there are insurances and taxes, and it different than other debt. Not that I agree it should be different, because I believe it should be included but its not!”

    Charles, there is not “always” taxes and insurance, escrow waivers, DAH…and if lines of credit were in play, they are not attached properly to property. The originator-lender LOL, cannot tie the lines of credit to your home, even if they borrow on your behalf. In some cases they borrowed long before the loans were signed, in my case 12/26/2006, signed 02/27/2007, when they were broke according to the bankruptcy court, with a Federal probe, Jeez!…how does that work Charles?

  229. @ Charles Reed, you are thinking in 1970’s terms. First of all, the FHLB created the first MBS, and just titled them as GOB’s. Same concept though.

    Most loans are not sold direct to Ginnie Mae securitizations. Most Ginnie Mae Loans are part of larger PLMBS pools and typically make up an entire tranche. See: Ginnie Cert’s in most Preliminary Prospectus sent out by investment banks.

    @ Javagold – the idea since 2009 was to transfer the losses to Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie, through refinance, HAMP, HARP and yes, HAFA. They don’t own the notes either, just residuals or premiums from guarantees. When you complete a HAMP trial mod the actual note owner is cast back into Title, and the loan is resecuritized.

    In 2015, you will have a willing executive, judicial and legislative branch. There will language and rhetoric started at the beginning of the year by the media, about the economy not moving forward because of the logjam of homes, and other bullshit about reserve requirements hurting the banks on a global scale, followed by legislation. Let’s call it the “mortgage reform act”

    It will be delivered as a solve all for homeowners, but deep inside the bill – there will language getting foreclosures into the federal system in judicial states, language about possession, and constant talk about: “hey, homeowners owe somebody something, and by not paying they are hurting taxpayers at Fannie and Freddie.

    Thereafter, Fannie and Freddie will be privatized and will be sold to shareholders – with language stating they are not responsible for the former GSE crimes – who will than claim that Fannie and Freddie are not the note-holders and only hold residuals that they resecuritized to issue their own bonds.

    They are simply setting up the buffer – just like the FDIC and the Fed did with the public / private loss share crap. We will set up another resolution trust type scenario through the FHLB, with taxpayers footing 97% of the bill, and lenders kicking in about 3%, which they will recover as tax write-offs.

    It’s coming, and you you will see. The crime committed is too massive to unwind across 50 jurisdictions. They just need to get through mid-terms, Obama is termed out, and the machine knows the people are voting in a Republican for president next time around – because that is the agenda they are pushing,and that is the agenda they will have. President “O” gets a 100 Million dollar speech package for his help, and the rest follow suit because they were the money is more important than the folks.

  230. bijaya an originator is the one that originated the loan for you, now the mortgage company you have could be the creditor if they has a warehouse line or they could have simply been a broker for what bank. So what bank did they broker the loan too?

    Now I am not saying you were not wronged somewhere down the line, but as far as the bankruptcy court they acted like it suppose to act and that why your having this problem.

    When I first started out in mortgages I worked 100 of these case and your attorney was wrong and that why they foreclosed. So now you must work to find out who was sold the loan over the year and if the loan was in a security or not.

    Who was in title when the property was foreclosed. Give us the break down and we can try to tell you what to look for is all I was saying, but what you come to the table with right now is wrong about bankruptcies. Even in a cht 13 the court not handling the mortgage as it handle directly through the bank. Remember with a mortgage there are insurances and taxes, and it different than other debt. Not that I agree it should be different, because I believe it should be included but its not!

  231. Did you file for a TRO when they sent new NOD? I think in non judicial states you only have a short period of time to file it. State Laws vary.

    Your debt collection claims and QT claims aside.

  232. KC proof of claim is required in state court but the Judge did not uphold the state statutes 764.101 or 761.101 in CA
    And refuse to be the first to do it he was required to quiet the title
    And wrongful debt collection after federal bankruptcy is a federal case
    I filed both
    There are no attorneys willing to help defend and the glaski case is correct

  233. You said the Judge knew you didn’t have the money to defend another case … is it possible the debt collector was counting on that?

    I’m not familiar with the word in non judicial states .. but I think its called filing a TRO in state court to stop the sale?

  234. Yes

  235. They have to have Proof of Claim in State Court just like they do Federal Court. Get It?

  236. No, you don’t get it. When you got notice that someone was making a claim against your title, you had a responsibility to defend it. Did You? Did you Stop the Trustee Sale by filing a action in state court that the plaintiff lacked standing to fc?

  237. Wrong again read you don’t know what you’re talking about
    In bankruptcy you give up all your rights to everything & the trustee takes over all assets & debts are relieved
    You have the right to put your home in or keep it out & we filed a homestead claim on our property rights

    All those in the chain were notified as to their being declared unsecured which in almost every bankruptcy case it has been showing that unless they can prove standing they have no right to foreclose and the judges are looking for the true creditor

    You still don’t get it and please do not say or write anything more I’m done with you

  238. Reed you still don’t get it
    There is no true creditor just a loan originator

    No one should’ve been coming they were discharged in bankruptcy

    Ameripath mgt Who was issued a five-year moratorium in the state of Washington because of fraudulent business practices & were not allowed to generate loans from 2009 on we were only told of three creditors But eight actually showed up in the documents received

    If the courts did their job anybody’s whose mortgage was sold as a securitization would be a credit card if not properly handled as glaski shows

    You guys must work for the banks

    just don’t get it

  239. bijaya looking at your last post, I don’t think you understand that the lender did not have to come forward because a BK does not handle a primary home loan at all period! So if you attorney was expecting that the bank was going to show up because he put them down as a creditor, he was wrong.

    Obama made the same mistake when the HAMP was first rolled, that he thought the BK judge handle these mortgages in court. He was wrong and admitted!

  240. Sent from my iPhone

    >

  241. yeah .. title is a state issue though.

    I have Cookies …. Got Milk?

  242. bijaya who is the real creditor and how did you determine who was the real creditor, and so who step up as the lender that foreclosed.

    Break it down and don’t come talking in code, lay it out and maybe we can’t help. I am not trying to not help you, but you and your legal team should have known what was coming after the BK was released.

    At what point did you think they were not coming? So who originated it and where did it travel?

  243. Wrong KC federal bankruptcy laws which are US federal laws rule in false collection of a debt after it has been discharged

    No there was no creditor that came forward on the first mortgage that was declared unsecured

    And yes my taxes and insurance were paid

    You also don’t know what you’re talking about Glaski is correct

  244. And another thing they were not the true creditor they were a servicer they were a boogieman and had no right to foreclose as the Glaski case shows
    Got it

  245. re:” the federal judge refused uptake the case saying it was a state matter ”

    The Judge was correct.

    re: ” We did exactly as we should we tried to modify with the true creditor and they wouldn’t come forward”

    The creditor was there, they just didn’t know they were the creditor.

    Were your taxes and ins delinquent?

  246. Reed you still don’t get it
    We did exactly as we should we tried to modify with the true creditor and they wouldn’t come forward
    You don’t know what you’re talking about or writing about either & your incoherent

  247. OK folks listen up and here how the financing of loan in a securities works. In 1970 Ginnie Mae was the first entity to create a mortgage back securities (MBS) and that was because they want more people to have an opportunity to own a home.

    If a bank only has $100 million to lend for 30yr home loan that only 66.6 loan that they will produce, and the money is tied up for 30yrs. So Ginnie Mae needed investors to invest in MBS.

    Now what happen first is a bank brings closed loans that they pooled together at least 3 and that makes up a pool and they relinquish the blank endorsed Note to Ginnie Mae who is only providing insurance and then they sell the securities (not the loan) to the investors who are 100% insured that their principal investment amount.

    The lender who is transformed into the “issuer” buys the securities which the “issuer” draws money from the amount the securities were sold at up to let say 85% of the loan value. Now they are not drawing 100% of the loan they made because they just may run off.

    So the issuer and turn around with the freed up money to make more loans to turn around and do the same thing over and over again, and only have something like 15% of that $100 million tied up, instead of 100%.

    So why would some mystery money source wire traceable money into the title for closing instead of directly into the bank or mortgage company account and the closing bank wire the money into the title company? Why would you allow another entity to has the “lien” placed into there name instead of this allege other money source?

    A bank has several ways that it has money coming in, and and as a home lender it lends money for home lending, so how would one think it going to a court and ask the judge that you want to see financial transaction from this other entity that wired the monies into the closing. Only a mortgage company would have have some bank other than them, wire the money in because a mortgage company is not a freaking bank and does not keep monies on hand, because they are not a bank! Bank if they are wiring money in have the ability to wire the money themselves from the Treasury!

  248. OCWEN LOSES $11.5 MILLION VERDICT ON $31,000 LOAN

    http://www.msfraud.org/the-ocwen-story.html

  249. Ocwen Federal Bank and the Quadrature of the Circle
    Each a Fraud
    (This article was sent to MSfraud in 2003, but we were asked to keep it confidential until today.)

    http://www.msfraud.org/ocwen-federal-bank-and-the-quadrature-of-the-circle_2-14.html

  250. bijaya what you and your attorney failed to understand that a bankruptcy court does not handle a primary residential home loan period and that why the bank waited to foreclose on you. You had a chance to bring that loan current and get help from the judge in that way or you should have filed a cht 13.

    The bank knew what they were doing and if your lawyer did not tell you what was going to happen, that not on the bank. As that matter was not clear up what did you expect was going to happen after the cht 7?

    Now you need to look into what a lot of us are looking at and that it the paperwork was correct and the right party did foreclose. But so far you only stated to me that the court worked in the way its always has.

  251. The banksters were losing
    Damn auto corrector type

  252. You just don’t get it
    It is the duty of the creditor to present himself before the judge in a bankruptcy case to protect his assets & the banisters were losing in bankruptcy cases to prove that they were the creditor so they waited until the bankruptcy was finalize before they foreclosed
    And in my federal case I filed wrongful collection of debt discharged in bankruptcy and the federal judge refused uptake the case saying it was a state matter and threw me out of court after I had two default judgments against four of the known lenders in my case with Res judicat from the seventh Court of Appeals in New York with a case exactly like mine that was up taken by the federal judge in that district. He did this knowing full well I had no money for appeal since I had just filed bankruptcy
    Got it

    you just don’t understand
    some of the stuff you post here is totally ill logical

    and there are no lawyers with any balls to take on these people like the lawyer for Glasick and she wasn’t afraid because it was her first case

  253. NPV. You have said this a few times now about cleaning up this mess in 2015. What exactly do u mean and why is not good for homeowners ??

  254. I am thinking if I not got a creditor for the house long before I filed bankruptcy I am clearing up that situation. If there no creditor for the house how is it taken from you, as it would be your homestead? Sound like you had a bad attorney!

    Why did the attorney not clear up that title before you got in front of the bankruptcy judge?

  255. iwantmynpv stop thinking that they are that stupid as to target money to lender to originate loan when the lender only has to front the money for 30 days and nobody is caught for illegally receiving money.

    Wells Fargo is a trillion dollar asset bank who can float a $100 billion and get it back from investor with interest in 30 day. Don’t you get the scheme? They don’t have to hold the debt as someone else was taking the risk. If the loan are in a Ginnie Mae pool it 100% insured by your tax dollars.

    If the loan not in the Ginnie Mae pool that loan is what the property was worth, and in some cases that was 50% of its old value meaning a 50% loan if the bank did not place the loan in a Ginnie Mae pool. But that the loan were in Ginnie Mae pools it paid the “investors” off 100% of the principal balance plus other insurances!

    Government knows it could not be the lender of home mortgage loans, but it did not need to because the bank had at least a certain amount set aside for short term lending. These loan are not bank portfolio loans!

    You folks did not work in a bank and you got the wrong ideal how money is made. This is a money making operation. How do you think Fannie just paid off $190 billion plus some they borrowed during the crisis?

  256. In chp 7 the creditor was declared unsecured
    The true creditor or any for that matter never showed up to fight this since there was no true creditor
    I claimed the house as a homestead & the trustee agreed but did not step up to defend title
    Got it
    So I filed against the pretender lender since they proceeded with a false robo signed default & proceeded to steel my homestead

  257. Charles – you simply don’t get it. Stop thinking like the correspondent lender. They merely set the first buffer to get the loans out to MERS. That was their entire existence.

  258. @ John Gault – finally someone who gets it. That’s right – the only thing transferred to the Trustee were the CDO Tranches – That is why the smart investors only purchased those series.

    Again, you are exactly right about the tax forgiveness. If the loan is paid – a party cannot assign that loss as income.

    Last, HAMP was set up strictly to lighten the Fannie Freddie burden on the guarantees, and the NPV test (put forth as a homeowner aid) is strictly for the GSE’s to resecuritize the loans in the name of the National Association’s. The NPV is the grading tool, and Congress will be looking to clean this mess up in 2015. Unfortunately, it is not going to be for the benefit of the homeowner.

  259. What is someone arguing in a CHT 7, as its a complete wipe out?

  260. Deadly Clear I would agree that the process started with the 1003 or the locking the loans to know what volume is being proposed, however those loans have to meet the requirement to actually complete the deal.

    It a part of the program because it now a known that 95% of Government insured loans are placed into the securities. So it your your a bank and you are originating a FHA or VA loan is a 95% chance that loan is ending up in the Ginnie Mae pool, and that what the government wants but it not going to allow you to keep the Note as the Note must be relinquished to Ginnie Mae.

    So it like a diamond dealer that buys and turns around and sell diamonds. So as a bank originates and sell that loan is a part of the business. But the bank are using their money because it only a short term investment of that money. These are billions and trillions of asset corporation who are fronting money for only a short 30 day period.

    What billions dollar bank cannot float a couple million dollar a month?

  261. You are correct Deadly Clear, …

  262. I argued this in BK7 judge said take it up with congress
    In state court filing congruently a restrainting order & case judge did not follow the rules and threw out the state case with RO
    In UD THE JUDGE SAID he would not be the first to quiet the title as required by CA statute an ruled for the pretender credit bid buyer

  263. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    And now we are learning through the patents the banks filed in the USTPO, that it was actually the 1003 loan application that began the securitization process, BEFORE the borrower signed the documents – as it was pledged/committed/sold to the investment bank (underwriters) …dipped into securitization (like being a little pregnant, wouldn’t you say?). All done without disclosure to the homeowner.

  264. Does anyone want to discuss the sale/leaseback tonight?

  265. KC if I were you as Ocwen is now under investigation by the NY State regulator because of there mortgage servicing, I would contact that office.

    When you received you loan from Ocwen or who ever they should have done a title search and made sure everything should have been checked and your should have received a title policy. Go to the title company and complain about the title is not clear and make them work for you to clear up this matter.

    But I was also go to who is regulating the title company!

  266. God Grant Me Patience ….

    Charles, Charles, Charles …… Never Mind!

  267. Call Ocwen and tell them you have a title problem, ask to speak to the party ( “legal dept”) that handles their title issues. 🙂

  268. KC I understand if you were wrongly defaulted, and they offer you a mod, however they cannot refuse payment in full! You got a contract for $140K or something and your balance now is $100,000 and since you were not behind, and you send them a certified check for $100K that the end of the loan unless you have some type of pre-payment penalty on the loan!

  269. Poppy Think LPS (and why Fidelity spun them off to do the dirty work, settled, then re-merged again) , Debt collector Law Offices and Title Attorneys

  270. I said .. they defaulted us when we were current, I said they kept trying to get us to apply for a loan mod, I said I offered cash payoff! I said I suspect you have what is known as …. Never Mind.

    You lost FC and I nor my attorney ever stepped into the courtroom.

  271. Just incidental info KC, not particularly concerned about the robo’s, but I like puzzles.

  272. KC I was not addressing your situation as that was not your question. However now that we are here and you seem to have that .01% type of case and not one for what actually ever talked about here.

    But you go from saying you paid cash to now you were offered a modification, so at some point here you received a loan and where behind on it or you requested a modification waiver for a mod with not being behind.

    If you paid cash for the loan I am sure that you have proof of that transaction in a cancel check or wire transfer, and if there is some dispute that the estate was not signed by everyone, then why are they not giving you your money back?

    I don’t think anyone connects with your issue because its so far off what going on in the country. Your issue is with a private individual and it a specialty type thing, but there going to be nobody else here that can add to what you already know because it not what everybody else is experiencing.

    You keep posting thing that no one else can use because it very much outside.

    Not trying to get into a fight with you, as I think you cannot find a group therapy to vent where we crazies here all are in the same area in a fight with the banks or MERS or both, and your with some estate attorney!

  273. Charles, did your parents shake you as a child? Sheesh!!

    There was No mortgage to pay off when we purchased the property. The remaining balance after costs was cut in a form of a check to the deceased estates beneficiary daughters. I know they got PAID! They admit the got PAID. They agree with me … WE SHOULD HAVE FULL TITLE.

    With a mortgage lien we intended to have on it. (not there)

    Sumbuddys attorney re-directed title and left the deceased sellers trust open for years after we closed.

  274. KC no one is turning over the property they are selling without monies at the closing table, and that why this there was no money at the closing is simply crazy. The seller of the property is not turning over real property for zero sum!

  275. johngault I believe the FDIC was a cover for some of this fraud by not releasing what was involved hiding the fact that the Fannie, Freddie & Ginnie loans in the securities that Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) had, but these loans in the securities were never subject to this sale to JPMorgan.

    So the $308 billion number that was leaked out appear to be a lot of WaMu’s loans. So as JP & Wells were steadily foreclosing on these loan as the OWNER of the loan they in fact were not. But there not FDIC shared loss because the loan were these agency loans and never a subject to the failed bank who had already relinquished the loan upon placing the loan into the securities!

  276. RE: ” your loan was funded or you would not have have purchase the property ”

    What if the loan funded, but you didn’t receive what you bought?
    (purchase/sale contract)

  277. Poppy there was monies used for the loan because your loan was funded or you would not have have purchase the property or refinanced. Now if you refinanced and the old lender was not paid off then that another story.

    But if Credit Sussie did seize the Notes prior too the BK then you need to get a copy of the Note in its current state because the only way it could be any good to them is that it was endorsed over to them and if it was just a blank endorsement without a sale occurring they are out of luck, because they cannot take an assignment and claim ownership.

    New Century would have to have sold the loan to be a valid transfer but if they seized them it does not sound as if a sale went down, and it sound as if these loans would have had blank endorsements. This is the sweet stop for you and you need to request this information from what ever regulator is governing who the Notice of Default is saying who the holder is!

  278. James the email is blackstarborn@yahoo.com

  279. Mandelman has a blog today about Steinberg v IndyMac, apparently decided in Steinberg’s favor on Jan 30th. Mr. Mandelman says the FDIC’s loss-share program only applies to portfolio loans and not to securitized loans. Assuming it’s true that the loss share only applies to portfolio loans and not sec’d loans, then let me repeat: the loss share program doesn’t apply to securitized loans. If there were evidence that loan was sec’d or even transferred for real value, I’d certainly be surprised as heck. I appreciate the distinction he’s making re: the loss share program, but if the loan weren’t in fact securitized……. Who’s to say whether any loan is a portfolio loan or not. It’s just not a blanket statement that can be made. imo. As we all know, many loans which were to be securitized weren’t.
    I thought we covered Steinberg, but maybe not (I don’t recall an issue of the FDIC loss-share program as a defense to a note).

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2014/02/fdic-shared-loss-agreements-did-not-pay-off-your-loan-no-matter-what-az-court-seems-to-think/

  280. Agreed

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  281. I still DON’T understand how/why the servicer is allowed to steal the houses as the plaintiff , when Fannie and Freddie own the notes. !!!!!!

  282. Poppy, let go of the Robo signing and focus on the reason for all the fraudulent documents and the robo signing.

    Dag gone It! They stole the assets!!!

  283. Anyone here have signatures or information about Cecila Rodriguez-VP of MERS and L.A.Llanos, notary from Bank of America, Canyon County, CA…appreciate it.

  284. Note was seized prior to bankruptcy, Credit Suisse….asked for the 90 rescission. Filed a claim and AP…a lot to the story, but the loan (line of credit) was not used for the property, DAH…there is nothing to collect.

    First comment was right! I am now a creditor….let’s see how they try to wrangle that. Not a slam-dunk, by any means.

  285. BINGO Charles.

  286. From attorney Stephen Foondos’ article linked by NG today:

    “The banks, fearing the appellate process, tried depublication and failed. While the banks argued that the Glaski decision could have a catastrophic impact on the banking industry……”

    Why do the banks fear catastrophic impact on the banking industry, pray tell? Have they done something to cause themselves harm? I’d say so! Let’s count the ways: the loans were never transferred to the trusts. The trusts paid for the loans and didn’t get them, resulting in security interests imo. During the non-transfers, people who owed the trusts those transfers insured the loans and received pay outs which also imo retired the obligation dollar for dollar. The empty trusts, pretending the loans were transferred, didn’t pay taxes on the payments received (the trust not having to pay taxes is the major benefit of the trust structure – all but non-profit corporations and a couple other business structures pay taxes on income and those it pays must pay taxes on those monies). These taxes are due and payable, as are the penalties and interest for non-payment (holy cow – that’s a lot of tamales!)** Imo, Glaski stands as evidence his loan was not transferred to the trust previously (as does every “MERS” assgt) of loans (in default, to boot). If the trust paid for assets it didn’t and now cannot receive, someone(s), the investors, are due a refund of monies paid. The “trust” owes refunds, taxes, penalities, interest, and any damage done to those who collected income on fictional assets (are the MBS’ fictional if there is no underlying asset? Seems so to me.)
    If the investors paid for the loans and never got them and if that created a security interest as I believe, but the banksters who had insured the loans received those proceeds and didn’t “share” with security holders, that strikes me as a real hornet’s nest, because altho subject to the security interests, the note is paid to the extent of the payments received from third parties. Whether or not a party who owes another a note-transfer lawfully has an insurable interest, got me. Seems not. He can’t collect from the maker because he’s already been paid by the investors and by insurance proceeds.

    What I think those banksters did is appropriate someone else’s assets, and now that they’ve benefitted from doing that, they want to transfer the loans to the trust and let them eat cake. They want the investors to take any hit (by f/c of generally underwater deals) not covered by anyone, and disregarding the facts of third party payments (they won’t even credit the borrower with FNMA’s guarantee payments, for pete’s sake. That’s just plain cold). The trusts were owed performing (if not seasoned) loans that weren’t underwater or in default.
    If a deal is created where no one has responsibility of assuring performance (here the delivery of the loans), it’s an unconscionable deal. imo. Who, after Glaski, may enforce the loan? Obviously, not the trust. We need to anticipate their next move and be ready (we weren’t ready for their “MERS” assignments after the Consent Order). So catastrophic, yeah, it is. Guess they should have thought of that and remembered that he who causes the loss must bear it. Well, they could try looking on the bright side: they managed to snarf millions of homes already.

    **the alleged debt forgiveness for homeowners may have been because there’s no legitimate off-setting write off by anyone. But another reason showing up is it may have been to pave the way for tax forgiveness for truly bad actors. I mean, surely people with the knowledge of this stuff had to expect it would be outed sooner or later (too bad it’s later for so many former homeowners).

  287. Title Abstract Anyone? Attorney?

    Poppy, Limbo loans …… held in a PPT.

  288. ##### The grantor of the special warranty deed, in effect, only warrants the title against their own actions or omissions. They warrant nothing prior to their taking title.

  289. Take another Look at this example .. Can you see SPLIT?

    Title Abstract ….. Documents/Sales

    Dec 11, 2013
    Grantor: KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION TTEE MATAWIN VENTURES TRUST
    Grantee: CASS PROPERTIES LLC $75,000
    ****Special Warranty Deed ****

    May 23, 2013
    Grantor: GILL, CAMELLIA R
    Grantee: KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION TTEE MATAWIN VENTURES TRUST
    ****Warranty Deed

    Feb 25, 2013
    Grantor : GUESS, ROBERT E
    Grantee: KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION TTEE MATAWIN VENTURES TRUST $116,000
    ****Warranty Deed

    Aug 11, 2006
    Grantor: GUESS, ROBERT E
    Grantee: GUESS, ROBERT E
    ****Warranty Deed

    May 1, 2006
    Grantor: OLDHAM, DAVID W
    Grantee: GUESS, ROBERT E $110,500
    History

    Feb 1, 1996 $70,000 History

  290. Land records hold the Grantee of the Trustee Deed as owner of record.

    … such ALTERED Trustee Deed purports to grant to hubby and law firm (law firm whited out and initialed by hubby and me).

    Trustee Agreement Please??

    Special Warranty Deed is granted to hubby and Kc entirely.

    Where is the deed transferring the ownership from seller trust to CAPITAL fUNDING CO LLC?

    Where is the deed to theeee?
    Where is the deed to hubby and Kc?

    Skip, Skip .. Skip to my Louuu ….

  291. Charles, I have gotten all of the documents that were in the public records. I can email you the Note if you send me your email address or you can email me and I will send it to you. What should be or not be on the Note?

  292. Crime Scene R …

    1. Land Contract and Trustees Duties transferred via a Trustee Deed and filed after closing (without filing the Trustees Agreement).

    2. Special Warranty Deed (unfiled). Special Warranty Deed states a different Grantor than the Trustee Deed.

    Shall I count the dirty snowballs piled up after that?

    MERS Instrument
    CW LP
    MERS assignment ( No Harm BOA? Its was all CW..ehh?)
    CW LP release

    **** up it goes and down it falls****

    Many Blessings to All!

  293. Crime Scene R … “Purchase Closing”

    Start. Purchase /Sale

    Instrument creates the Estate and Strips/Skips the Estate of Title

    Finish … Sale and Leaseback

  294. James the Note is going to help you unravel this, plus you need to go down to the land recording office and get a copy of any and all assignments of the Deed of Trust or Mortgage or Security Deed depending on which security instrument is used in MD.

  295. Poppy now you added that the loan were involved in the bankruptcy with is a different situation where the court has come in and seized all the assets of NC and your loan was one of NC assets. Yes it matter now that NC did not pay the lines back because the BK court seized all assets.

    Here what other did in other cases was to sign a blank endorsed Note (bankruptcy remote procedure) as this give the physical possession to another, which under UCC 3 makes them the owner of the Note, as the Note is in the physical possession of another. WaMu loan in the possession of Ginnie Mae held by Wells Fargo as custodian. The bankruptcy court cannot seize those loans.

    Your situation even if the Notes where signed with a blank endorsement but not physically relinquish and still in the hand of NC the court is going to seize those assets, and the court going to make the determination what to do with the loans, and as long as the loan parameters don’t change, what the argument?

  296. Charles, this loan does not belong to Fannie Mae. I just got off the phone with MD Office of Financial Regulation. And Mortgage Lenders Network is no longer liscensed in MD. I could not find an office from them so I think they no longer exist.

  297. Poppy as New Century had so many problem is it they who are attempting to foreclose on you? Who they got the money from as a warehouse line is before your dealing and has nothing to do really with you, as your arrangement was with NC and not the people who they got the line from. The house was not the collateral.

    You need to see who on title at the court and go from there instead of follow the funding, you need to follow the purchase of the loan to another it there was.

    This is no different than you getting an unsecured loan from the bank for $100,000 and you went out a purchase a $50,000 SUV the next day, thee SUV is not collateral for that $100,000 loan you purchase as its now your property and the bank cannot place a “lien” against the car because the initial loan from the was not based on that SUV.

    Yes the warehouse banks knew NC was in the business of home mortgage lending, but the line was not base on the individual home loans.

  298. Are you hearing me Charles…this is in a Federal Court action, no funding, seizure of note(s) by non-lender(held for payment by the bankruptcy court/trustee), no servicer at the time…defaulted in 10/01/2007, while paying, current…and lines of credit were stolen by New Century…can’t happen the way you say, sorry! FYI: bankruptcy court paid the lines of credit 90%…and still trying to collect 100% plus, fees, etc…over $75,000.00, above loan amount, that is paid. The ledger is zero balance from that time frame…

  299. Poppy if you has a loan in a government pool that loan never in actual default or the securities would fail as the payment are always flown through either by you or the servicer.

  300. My Dear Charles:

    New Century, originator got lines of credit to fund loans and NEVER paid the lines of credit…they borrowed on homeowner’s behalf…many of the loans could not be sold forward, nor were the notes securitized…now what? You have no lien, no pay back of the borrowed money…loans illegally seized by lenders of lines of credit (not real lenders)…and I am paying my loan, then it is defaulted while current. Explain this, Charles?

  301. Big Bank Punishments Don’t Fit Their Crimes, David Dayden

  302. Charles Reed you can’t even speak properly or spell let alone explain your ridiculous argument in favor of the banks.

    The fact is, it DOES matter where the money came from you dolt!

    It matters because banks and others who are not the party of interest are interjecting themselves into a position as owners of real property.

    How can you not understand this?

    And, re “lawyers are not winning” It’s the judges, that’s why. It has nothing to do with proper and accurate implementation of the law.
    Judges are just lawyers, they can be good lawyers and not so good lawyers or downright horrible lawyers who have somehow managed to find a vacant spot on the bench.

    If law was more like science we would have a lot more clarity and specificity and a lot less stupidity, ignorance and corruption.

  303. In fact, Neil: my note was defaulted when current on payments, per letter from Ombudsman and ledger…how’s that work?

  304. James go to the court and pick up the copies and all assignment recorded in reference to your loan. I believe you said the loan belonged to Fannie Mae, and if this is the case then Fannie need to have had the DOT assigned to them. You need a current copy of the Note to see if the endorsements are correct.

    Since the OCC regulates Wells Fargo request this information through the OCC to Wells.

  305. Can someone help with this. These items were on my Notice of Intent to Foreclose:

    Please be advised that this law firm has been retained by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
    (“Servicer”) regarding a default in your Deed of Trust/Mortgage Note payable to Mortgage
    Lenders Network USA, lnc. (“Creditor”) in the original principal amount of $135,000,00 (“Note”).
    Repayment of the Note is secured by a Deed ofTrust/Mortgage on the referenced property.

    • (2) The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed is Mortgage
    Lenders Network USA, Inc.

    Notice that they have Mortgage Lenders Network as the Creditor in both instances. This is a securitized loan, so why would they be listed as the creditor. On the Deed of Trust it list MLN as Assignor and MERS as the nominee for MLN. Also when I looked on the PSA it stated that MLN was the Subservicer of the mortgage. Is this correct?

  306. Neil looking at hearsay as he is guessing as to where a bank received their financing? Banks receive monies in many different ways either in deposit, treasury, bank holding companies or maybe other banks, but that becomes the bank’s money.

    So I as the bank have an transaction before I do business with you: that the business of the bank as long as that money not something like drug money.

    Now we are at the closing table and I am lending you money, and what happen before you got to the table is none of you business where I got my money or not gotten outside money because you are borrowing from me and not them.

    There was no request while borrowing the monies as to the history of monies. Neil wants a fishing exploration in the attempt to find another unknown source of alleged funding dollar. This is not going to happen unless a “investor” come forward and say I give this money under some scheme to lend to the borrower and I want my money back! But the investor is not getting the monies back from the borrowers because that not who they has the contract with!

  307. Neil start off correctly and them goes down the rabbit hole once again. The Note is the contract that X amount of money has been borrower and not the wire or check as a big bank doe not have to use a wire and can use a check at a title company or close the loan at the bank location as we did.

    Neil fails to understand that when mortgage companies perform loan that because they are a bank that the wire is going to come from a bank that has wiring capabilities. The mortgage company is not set up as a bank to transfer monies.

    Now the law does not require the originator to have to show proof that the money was was at the closing table because if it were not money at the closing then the properties would not have changed hands or debts from a refinanced paid off.

    The reason attorney are not winning with this show me the initial wire has no purpose. However it that Note has changed hand and the Notes has a blank endorsement, on the face of the Note does not indicate that an entity has purchase the Note/debt. So UCC 9 says that the burden to show that they actual purchase the debt.

    Now we know with Ginnie Mae pooled loans that it is never the case that Ginnie Mae purchases a single home mortgage loan because it is against Congress rules and the agency is not regulated to lend, and does not purchase these loans.

    Some of Fannie & Freddie loans are also done by a blank Note and if that done without monies exchanging hand, but if there was an exchange and as long as the assignment of DOT was signed the day of the purchase and could have not been recorded, is fine as long as they loan was not sold before the document was recorded. It does not matter when the DOT or assignment of it is recorded as long as the Note not transferred!

  308. It can get so much more complicated
    If its all wrongful collection of a debt ( etc, etc, and, well fraud must be defined per evidence and proved) but for those of us who are still in court and had our homes foreclosed wrongfully we see the result of the modus operendi, we have the further sales of others homes and the new ” owner renter” now owes back rent to the real owner, once re estsblished as still the real owner
    Not legal advice just pre pondering as a reasonable person would.

  309. LDTX77503
    Well, this is a rather interesting case. Answered my question as to why Bank of America/Recontrust wrote in a recent letter to me that Bank of New York Mellon appointed Recontrust as Trustee and is initiating foreclosure. Within minutes after I filed a complaint against Bank of New York Mellon with the Federal Trade Commission for the 5th time my home was pulled from Auction. Furthermore, I questioned a article of mail I received which read my Lender is Bank of New York Mellon and my Trustee is Wayne Wheat. Article showed it came from Atlanta GA HRD (Home Retention Department) but has a Dallas TX Phone Number. The minuted I pointed this out Recontrust sent a new appointment of Substitute Document which had Wayne Wheat’s name listed as one of the Substitute Trustees, changed the Auction Date to March 4, 2014, and removed Wayne Wheat’s name from the document. Coincidence? Maybe…. Is Recontrust sending out bogus articles of mail titled Home Retention Department? Why then did this name get removed? Bank of New York Mellon was told Recontrust is initiating foreclosure on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon and house once again removed from Auction. Very next day Fed Ex package from Bank of America for a Loan Modification. I may not be a lawyer, I may not be as smart as all of you on this blog but one thing I am and that is detail oriented. I pay attention to every article of mail, names, dates, etc. If you were able to take my house legally Bank of America you would have drug me to court and taken it. Going on 3 years with this battle and I will never ever enter into a loan modifiation with Bank of America.

  310. As usual total nonsense!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: